Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Biomechanics would argue men are machines!
Some cognitive scientists would argue the brain is a machine and emotion is a set of computer viruses that create our conciousness, that we are purely a product of infection! What do you think! I will post later

I'm a machine...oh yeah, a love machine....

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I'm a machine...oh yeah, a love machine....

good for you CF

gigaddy...gigaddy....

Metaphorically, people often refer to anything that consists of many individual parts working in harmony with one another, to be a "well oiled machine". Literally though, it's a mechanical item, system or tool created by man to carry out a task on its own via "A.I", or created to be used by man to carry out a task. Eg: Worktools etc.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Metaphorically, people often refer to anything that consists of many individual parts working in harmony with one another, to be a "well oiled machine". Literally though, it's a mechanical item, system or tool created by man to carry out a task on its own via "A.I", or created to be used by man to carry out a task. Eg: Worktools etc.

-AC

Bioengineers would disagree, as would many Doctore and Cognitive scientists - trust me on this. Good use of the dictionary AC

Man IS a machine, its a complicated organic Robot.

Whena car is smashed, Its peices are thrown out of allignment, and it doesn't work anymore.

When we are shoot, fall off a cliff, crushed, our peices are also thrown off allignment, and we stop working.

As simple as that.

If cars don't go to heaven, we sure as hell don't.
There is no heaven, its the end.

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
Man IS a machine, its a complicated organic Robot.

Whena car is smashed, Its peices are thrown out of allignment, and it doesn't work anymore.

When we are shoot, fall off a cliff, crushed, our peices are also thrown off allignment, and we stop working.

As simple as that.

If cars don't go to heaven, we sure as hell don't.
There is no heaven, its the end.

Truth!

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Bioengineers would disagree, as would many Doctore and Cognitive scientists - trust me on this. Good use of the dictionary AC

I don't care if they'd disagree or not. I'm not posting here to please them or get their approval.

When our vital organs are destroyed we die. When a machine's parts are smashed, it stops working.

The difference between the two is that humans are organic living beings. Machines couldn't exist without humans.

Humans aren't machines.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't care if they'd disagree or not. I'm not posting here to please them or get their approval.


I'm glad you wouldn't get it

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

When our vital organs are destroyed we die. When a machine's parts are smashed, it stops working.


You're right!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

The difference between the two is that humans are organic living beings. Machines couldn't exist without humans.


hmm could not be created without a human - but some space probes have not had human contact for 30 years and are still transmitting and genetically engineered "viruses" no longer need man at all. Your understanding of machine is very narrow and lacks imagination! I guess you find Science hard?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
gigaddy...gigaddy....

ah... without a doubt the best FG char...
I really wanted this as my avi.. But i couldn't get it small enough...

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
hmm could not be created without a human - but some space probes have not had human contact for 30 years and are still transmitting and genetically engineered "viruses" no longer need man at all. Your understanding of machine is very narrow and lacks imagination! I guess you find Science hard?


Hahaha, no. I don't find science "hard". I lack imagination? I swear you just agreed with a guy when he said "We die, there's no Heaven, it's the end." Hypocricy flying everywhere.

Secondly your flawed logic here amuses me: "hmm could not be created without a human - but some space probes have not had human contact for 30 years and are still transmitting and genetically engineered "viruses" no longer need man at all"

So? Who created them? Humans. They were designed to be self-sustaining and not need human attention and upkeep, that doesn't equate to them being able to be created without us.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Hahaha, no. I don't find science "hard". I lack imagination? I swear you just agreed with a guy when he said "We die, there's no Heaven, it's the end." Hypocricy flying everywhere.

Secondly your flawed logic here amuses me: "hmm could not be created without a human - but some space probes have not had human contact for 30 years and are still transmitting and genetically engineered "viruses" no longer need man at all"

So? Who created them? Humans. They were designed to be self-sustaining and not need human attention and upkeep, that doesn't equate to them being able to be created without us.

-AC

So you think a machine has to be created by man! I see - again an extremely narrow perspective man emulates nature you see AC. Machines will one day design and build themselves auto ACAD and CAM are the begining.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Biomechanics would argue men are machines!
Some cognitive scientists would argue the brain is a machine and emotion is a set of computer viruses that create our conciousness, that we are purely a product of infection! What do you think! I will post later

Biomechs would be right. If you wear that lens, that's exactly how human beings will appear, a reliable (perhaps valid) "as if." Yup. I quite agree.

Originally posted by Mindship
Biomechs would be right. If you wear that lens, that's exactly how human beings will appear, a reliable (perhaps valid) "as if." Yup. I quite agree.

I knew you would you're a scientist

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
So you think a machine has to be created by man! I see again an extremely narrow perspective man emulates nature. Machines will one day design and build themselves auto ACAD and CAM are the begining.

Yes, machines do have to be created by man. It has always been this way and it is this way now.

Your last line is pure speculation and only when this happens will your claim hold any water. They don't go around creating themselves now, so you're quite wrong.

Silly you, you can't counter a factual part of the world with a "Well in the future...". Conceptual Vs Factual doesn't work.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


When our vital organs are destroyed we die. When a machine's parts are smashed, it stops working.



-AC

But you could argue that just like a machine all it takes is to replace the organ and the mechanism will work. Of course the body could reject the donated organ and failed. Thus we're not similar. However, the same can be said about a machine. Even if the proper piece is correct part the whole mechanism could reject the piece and fail just like the human body.

Now, just to be fair you can counter the argument by just saying. "A machine died? It was NEVER alive in the first place".

Play with the words AC. You should be master at this.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
But you could argue that just like a machine all it takes is to replace the organ and the mechanism will work. Of course the body could reject the donated organ and failed. Thus we're not similar. However, the same can be said about a machine. Even if the proper piece is correct the whole mechanism could reject the piece and fail just like the human body.

Now, just to be fair you can counter the argument by just saying. "A machine died? It was NEVER alive in the first place".

Play with the words AC. You should be master at this.

If you read my first post I said that many people refer to anything consisting of multiple parts that rely upon each other as mechanical or machine-like.

Having the crucial ingredients called emotion and life is what sets us apart, or we would be machines. To stand a human next to a robot and say "You're the same" is pathetic.

Why do you think that it's common for someone to be referred to as a machine if they show a lack of humanity, emotion and independence? Because that's how machines are and that's what sets humans apart.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, machines do have to be created by man. It has always been this way and it is this way now.

Your last line is pure speculation and only when this happens will your claim hold any water. They don't go around creating themselves now, so you're quite wrong.

Silly you, you can't counter a factual part of the world with a "Well in the future...". Conceptual Vs Factual doesn't work.

-AC

Viruses are not alive outside the host they are considered bio machines by many Doctors and Scientists like me! They reproduce. No! You lack knowledge I am quite right!

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Viruses are not alive outside the host they are considered bio machines by many Doctors and Scientists like me! They reproduce. No! You lack knowledge I am quite right!

No, you just consider viruses to be machines. They're living organisms, not mechanical, synthetic "organisms."

Sharing the same attributes or characteristics does not make any two things the same.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


Having the crucial ingredients called emotion and life is what sets us apart, or we would be machines. To stand a human next to a robot and say "You're the same" is pathetic.
-AC

Kinda like that Spielberg movie A.I. (I'm under the assumption you saw it.)

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Viruses are not alive outside the host! Yes many are.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Kinda like that Spielberg movie A.I. (I'm under the assumption you saw it.)

Nope, never saw that.

-AC

Originally posted by debbiejo
Yes many are.

trust me they are not, they work by subverting a cells genetic material the only active component is the receptors outside of a host cell.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
trust me they are not, they work by subverting a cells genetic material the only active component is the receptors outside of a host cell. Air born virus?...Also doesn't Aids live outside the body for awhile?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
trust me they are not, they work by subverting a cells genetic material the only active component is the receptors outside of a host cell.

I suppose those airborne viruses die on the way to other people and then resurrect themselves later then?

Moreover, those viruses that are biological having parasitic survival characteristics doesn't equate to them being machines.

-AC

Some unusual machines

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/00/11.30.00/biomolecular_motors.html

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/issue/articles/0840/ careers_in_nanobiotechnology_biomolecular_machines
/(parent)/

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I suppose those airborne viruses die on the way to other people and then resurrect themselves later then?

Moreover, those viruses that are biological having parasitic survival characteristics doesn't equate to them being machines.

-AC

They are inert outside of a cell the ignorance is astounding, did you even do GCSE Biology. They are bags of chemicals only outside the cell I will find a "simple" website to explain!

Resorting to links? I've seen this before. Whirly, much like a virus, uses up all his own resources then attaches himself to a new host (the net) and feeds of ITS resources to survive.

Being a machine and being biomechanical are two different things. Especially since the mechanical in biomechanical only comes from the idea that it's multiple parts working together to sustain a whole. Not that it's actually a machine, you're thinking of cybernetics.

What are you arguing? That biological/organic organisms can have "mechanical" elements? You were asking if humans were machines, they're not machines. They possess mechanical elements, not actual machinery.

-AC

http://student.ccbcmd.edu/courses/bio141/lecguide/unit2/viruses/lytlc.html

2. Nonliving characteristics of viruses

a. They are acellular, that is, they contain no cytoplasm or cellular organelles.

b. They carry out no metabolism on their own and must replicate using the host cell's metabolic machinery. In other words, viruses don't grow and divide. Instead, new viral components are synthesized and assembled within the infected host cell.

c. They possess DNA or RNA but never both.

Number 2 = No metabolism do you get it simpletons

No metabolism yet they reproduce in a host!!!

links are great AC you should try them they support arguments with evidence try it sometime!

If you even realised the irony of what you just said, it'd be funny.

Non-living CHARACTERISTICS. Viruses are alive, they have to be. Having a part does not mean the whole goes by the same rules. Just like having MECHANICAL or non-sentient characteristics in organs doesn't mean that a whole human is a machine.

Come on, Whirly.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you even realised the irony of what you just said, it'd be funny.

Non-living CHARACTERISTICS. Viruses are alive, they have to be. Having a part does not mean the whole goes by the same rules.

Come on, Whirly.

-AC

Rubbish any undergrad bioogist knows they are not, as does any text book and I have backed my opinions up with credible links thats what they are for.

irony

You haven't backed up your opinions with credible links, those links are your opinion.

You're not capable of producing anything on your own, again much like a virus. Fun this, isn't it?

-AC

Simplest explanation I could find

http://www.beyondbooks.com/lif72/2c.asp

hope you get it AC

Heres a high school lesson plan

http://www.sirinet.net/~jgjohnso/viruses.html

viruses are not alive!

Heres a MD telling you

Viruses

By Patrick Quanten MD



Let's start with a medically well-known fact: viruses aren't themselves alive. They are smaller and simpler than bacteria and by themselves they are inert and harmless. So, the immediate question then has to be: How can you "catch" a virus if it isn't a living thing?

http://freespace.virgin.net/ahcare.qua/literature/science/viruses.html

Why do you keep throwing links? Do some typing, man.

You are arguing that they are machines, aren't you? Yes. Therefore, I'm showing you that they aren't. They're not mechanical, man made machines.

What are you trying to prove? Your point of view has shifted about ten times from the first page. All off the back of "Are Humans Machines?".

The answer is no.

-AC

My answer to what a machine is can be made by asserting what a machine isn't: human.

Thankyoueverymuchpleasecomeagain.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
My answer to what a machine is can be made by asserting what a machine isn't: human.

Thankyoueverymuchpleasecomeagain.

Exactment.

As I said, what separates them from us is humanity, being human.

-AC

I concur! I concur! I concur!

Humans grow, machines are built.

How difficult is that to understand?

It's not, but some people think it's cool to just make a mountain out of a grain of sand, despite knowing the obvious answer.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why do you keep throwing links? Do some typing, man.

You are arguing that they are machines, aren't you? Yes. Therefore, I'm showing you that they aren't. They're not mechanical, man made machines.

What are you trying to prove? Your point of view has shifted about ten times from the first page. All off the back of "Are Humans Machines?".

The answer is no.

-AC

Hey you said viruses were alive I backed up my statement they were not with Medical Doctors, Teachers etc - just because you got owned. Live with it!



Are Humans Machines - So you're asking a question now? They are Bio machines based on numerous systems we are starting to understand more and more, can we make a human yet? Not from scratch! Could we Clone one yes! The Human Genone project is leading us to understand the role of more and more genes! will we ever be able to make complex organisms from scratch
- sure! We can sequence DNA something we have known the role of for 50 years. Are Men Machines - Yup nerves are electical, hormones are chemical, bones are mechanical etc. Easy really!

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Hey you said viruses were alive I backed up my statement they were not with Medical Doctors, Teachers etc - just because you got owned. Live with it!

When a person resorts to using the 'owned' phase, all preceding posts are deemed invalid.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
When a person resorts to using the 'owned' phase, all preceding posts are deemed invalid.

cool we'll start again! and I can "own" him all over again tmz as I am off to sleep!

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Hey you said viruses were alive I backed up my statement they were not with Medical Doctors, Teachers etc - just because you got owned. Live with it!



Haha, well whob...I mean Whirly, you didn't own me. Viruses aren't sentient living beings like humans are, just like trees aren't. Trees aren't dead though, are they? No.

You brought viruses up in a desperate attempt to crawl away from the fact that you tried to prove humans were machines and fell flat on your face.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Are Humans Machines - So you're asking a question now? They are Bio machines based on numerous systems we are starting to understand more and more, can we make a human yet? Not from scratch! Could we Clone one yes! The Human Genone project is leading us to understand the role of more and more genes! will we ever be able to make complex organisms from scratch
- sure! We can sequence DNA something we have known the role of for 50 years. Are Men Machines - Yup nerves are electical, hormones are chemical, bones are mechanical etc. Easy really!

You honestly believe in what parts of your brain you are in control of, that humans and machines, or a robot made entirely of metal, wires and technology, are equal?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
cool we'll start again! and I can "own" him all over again tmz as I am off to sleep!

Haha, and you spoke to ME of jokes going over one's head?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


You honestly believe in what parts of your brain you are in control of, that humans and machines, or a robot made entirely of metal, wires and technology, are equal?

-AC

Not at all! again you misunderstand my post, thats cool you don't get Science - Own you again tmz

I asked, I didn't tell. I was asking so that you would reveal what it is you DO believe, because that seems to be many things right now.

You'll hit the mark one day I'm sure.

-AC

People just see similarities and come to the conclusion that they're both identical. Which in this case it just isn't...

Great sig quote, WD.

-AC

Isn't the thread title a question!

I don't know, do you!

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I'm a machine...oh yeah, a love machine....

Yeah a malfunctioning one

Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah a malfunctioning one



hysterical

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
TAll you ever do is post essay after essay and say "Sums up my view". You don't actually have a view do you? So you post something and stand behind it like some kind of shield then to add to the pathetic nature of your debate, you claim "I owned you".


-AC

I like to provide evidence to support my views, in answer to th rest of your post I missed nothing. I said humans were not "nuts and bolt machines" in response to your post and I have stated continuously they are bio machines, bio machines are at present the most complicated kind of machine. I missed nothing! You missed the point that your view of what a machine is was far to narrow, that was the point of this thread. Owned again thats three times in one thread. Try doing research rather than stating opinions on things obviously beyond you.

I love the way you often try to argue about the poster, rather than provide any evidence to support your statements and get annoyed when others post supporting evidence. You really are a flim flam merchant, all opinion and no substance.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I like to provide evidence to support my views, in answer to th rest of your post I missed nothing. I said humans were not "nuts and bolt machines" in response to your post and I have stated continuously they are bio machines, bio machines are at present the most complicated kind of machine. I missed nothing! You missed the point that your view of what a machine is was far to narrow, that was the point of this thread. Owned again thats three times in one thread. Try doing research rather than stating opinions on things obviously beyond you.

Owned? Hahaha, how much more of your credibility are you going to throw away? Taking the childish route eh? I'll take the high road and stick to the issue:

You believe you owned me by trying (and failing) to prove that my view of what makes a machine is far too narrow? I believe what you believe, literally machines are nuts and bolts. If you want to get into the technical specifications of biomechanics then yes, humans are possibly applicable, but humans aren't literal machines, this was my argument. So how you've owned me by proving my point I'll never know. You're on another world there, Whirly.

PS: Don't use the O word, it demeans you.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I love the way you often try to argue about the poster, rather than provide any evidence to support your statements and get annoyed when others post supporting evidence. You really are a flim flam merchant, all opinion and no substance.

I'm not annoyed, I'm amused. You're not supporting anything because by definition you'd need a base to begin with. All you've done is throw out bits of an opinion then post link after link.

For what? What have you exactly countered? My argument was that humans aren't nuts and bolts machines (fact), nor will nuts and bolts machines ever be equal to humans. That was my argument, you've agreed with the former and you can't prove the latter beyond pathetic speculation. So what is it you're trying to prove? That humans count as biomechs? Who denied that? This all began with you trying to debate my claim of "No computer or machine will ever be able to independently create music as emotional as a band of human musicians." And they won't, fact. Because they aren't capable of emotion, which is of course, the key ingredient for making emotional musical pieces. If you can counter this point (the reason this thread exists anyway) then you will have your "owned" which you so preciously strive for, but you and I both know you can't do that.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Owned? Hahaha, how much more of your credibility are you going to throw away? You believe you owned me by trying (and failing) to prove that my view of what makes a machine is far too narrow?
.

-AC

Its proven you don't believe living things are machines, obviously as we have started being able to modify them they are.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Owned? Hahaha, how much more of your credibility are you going to throw away? -AC

You have been it's no biggie

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
PS: Don't use the O word, it demeans you.


You started it in another thread telling me you could own me you haven't ever. I actually don't believe anyone can be owned on a forum and was playing *** for tat.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

If you want to get into the technical specifications of biomechanics then yes, humans are possibly applicable, but humans aren't literal machines, this was my argument. So how you've owned me by proving my point I'll never know. -AC

Nope again you miss the point the fact we can modify everything about humans from the way they think to how the muscles absorb protein indicates they are machines - you miss the point again.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

For what? What have you exactly countered? My argument was that humans aren't nuts and bolts machines, nor will nuts and bolts machines ever be equal to humans.
-AC

We agree in this but I asked you what you thought a machine was a machine does not have to be nuts and bolts. Yoiu back track by giving a narrow definition of what a machine is.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

. So what is it you're trying to prove? That humans count as biomechs? Who denied that? This all began with you trying to debate my claim of "No computer or machine will ever be able to independently create music as emotional as a band of human musicians." And they won't, fact. Because they aren't capable of emotion, which is of course, the key ingredient for making emotional musical pieces.

-AC

You see all emotion is in the opinion of many is a response to stimuli, as machines get more complex they will feel emotion. Pathetic speculation. Hmm you can't prove it is or isn't. You only prove you lack imagination. Yup you don't like me posting supporting links usually because you have none to support your lack of speculation.

A virus doesn't satisfy the requirements to be considered alive, AC.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
A virus doesn't satisfy the requirements to be considered alive, AC.

So speaks another scientist!

Fair enough. Not alive, active is more what I was looking for. My bad there.

On we go:

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Its proven you don't believe living things are machines, obviously as we have started being able to modify them they are.

Human's aren't nuts and bolts machines, they're not machines in the common sense as I said, which you have apparantly ignored haven't you? If you want to be technical and get into the specifics of BIOmechanics, then again, as I said, yes.

My argument was, is and will always be that humans aren't the same as nuts and bolts machines, man made tools and mechanisms, nor will they ever be. You continually ignore that point to your discredit.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
You have been it's no biggie

How childish, you disappoint me.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
You started it in another thread telling me you could own me you haven't ever. I actually don't believe anyone can be owned on a forum and was playing *** for tat.

What the hell? So you're admitting to being childish and combining it with a claim I never said? In the recent thread where this machine "debate" came up, I said that no amount of computer technology or man made system will ever have the ability to produce music as emotional or "real" as a human band.

You disagreed and upon realising how stupid your view was, you backed out and tried to worm and weasel your way into "What about viruses?" when nobody spoke about viruses. The debate started from the music discussion, a debate which you have no hope in.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Nope again you miss the point the fact we can modify everything about humans from the way they think to how the muscles absorb protein indicates they are machines - you miss the point again.

You're making about 90 different points, and you accused ME of flip flopping. All the points you've made, I've understood. They're just dumb.

Let's get on topic: You disagreed when I said no technology sans human intellect will ever produce music as emotional or intricate as a band of human musicians. Do you still hold this view?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
We agree in this but I asked you what you thought a machine was a machine does not have to be nuts and bolts. Yoiu back track by giving a narrow definition of what a machine is.

A machine doesn't have to be nuts and bolts, I said in my first post that people refer to machines as many things. Primarily they are constructed my men with synthetic or possibly natural materials, but still created by men. A machine first and foremost is what you find in a factory. I never, ever said there was no other kind of machine did I? No. I said that humans aren't the common version and perception of machine.

Try reading my posts.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
You see all emotion is in the opinion of many is a response to stimuli, as machines get more complex they will feel emotion. Pathetic speculation. Hmm you can't prove it is or isn't. You only prove you lack imagination. Yup you don't like me posting supporting links usually because you have none to support your lack of speculation.

Speculate what? Hahaha, you're being so silly. You're using "will", will? Will implies that it's an inevitability, which suggests there's proof for this. Show it.

Secondly, will's and maybe's are just you saying what you think will happen. It's not about a lack of imagination, it's about me believing that machines in the traditional sense will never ever possess the compassionate intellect or emotion to make a masterpiece in art.

Agree? If not, prove it. You say they WILL in time be able to feel emotions, machines, man made systems. Prove it, if they WILL, if it's inevitable.

-AC

I lost my whole post I will redo it later suffice to say it has evidence to back it AC.

I never doubted your ability to post links and claim "This is what I believe." You're A+ in that class.

What I HOPE I will see is you replying to this:

"Speculate what? Hahaha, you're being so silly. You're using "will", will? Will implies that it's an inevitability, which suggests there's proof for this. Show it.

Secondly, will's and maybe's are just you saying what you think will happen. It's not about a lack of imagination, it's about me believing that machines in the traditional sense will never ever possess the compassionate intellect or emotion to make a masterpiece in art.

Agree? If not, prove it. You say they WILL in time be able to feel emotions, machines, man made systems. Prove it, if they WILL, if it's inevitable."

And the part before it. Since those are the relevant parts on which you created this thread.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I never doubted your ability to post links and claim "This is what I believe." You're A+ in that class.

What I HOPE I will see is you replying to this:

"Speculate what? Hahaha, you're being so silly. You're using "will", will? Will implies that it's an inevitability, which suggests there's proof for this. Show it.

Secondly, will's and maybe's are just you saying what you think will happen. It's not about a lack of imagination, it's about me believing that machines in the traditional sense will never ever possess the compassionate intellect or emotion to make a masterpiece in art.

Agree? If not, prove it. You say they WILL in time be able to feel emotions, machines, man made systems. Prove it, if they WILL, if it's inevitable."

And the part before it. Since those are the relevant parts on which you created this thread.

-AC


No more silly than saying they "won't" ever heard of Copernicus

Now I will reply properly

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Fair enough. Not alive, active is more what I was looking for. My bad there. So is my MP3 Player when I'm listening to music.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How childish, you disappoint me.

What the hell? So you're admitting to being childish and combining it with a claim I never said? In the recent thread where this machine "debate" came up, I said that no amount of computer technology or man made system will ever have the ability to produce music as emotional or "real" as a human band.



yes I admit to playing *** for tat I am childish often! As regards your statement thats an issue from the past and one I can easily find!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What the hell? So you're admitting to being childish and combining it with a claim I never said? In the recent thread where this machine "debate" came up, I said that no amount of computer technology or man made system will ever have the ability to produce music as emotional or "real" as a human band.

You disagreed and upon realizing how stupid your view was, you backed out and tried to worm and weasel your way into "What about viruses?" when nobody spoke about viruses. The debate started from the music discussion, a debate which you have no hope in.



Nope I never specified a type of machine I have merely shown your understanding of what a machine is "nuts and bolts" is to simple I used you ignorance on what a virus was to highlight this. I could have used an enzyme which is certainly a machine. I had no hope, actually I think computers will be able to mimic emotion pretty soon.

Ever heard of David Cope?

No......

here let me help

Professor David Cope
Department of Music
UC Santa Cruz
Title: Experiments in Musical Intelligence

Abstract:
I began Experiments in Musical Intelligence in 1981 as an attempt to create new instances of music in my style. With a lack of quantifiable definitions of style, I concentrated on the commonalties in the works of certain composers, commonalties I call signatures. By 1987 Experiments in Musical Intelligence had produced works (arguably) in the styles of Bach and Mozart, among others. Further experimentation allowed for more extensive output both in terms of work length and complexity as well as stylistic diversity. Experiments in Musical Intelligence subsequently produced new works in the styles of composers as contrasting as Stravinsky, Palestrina, and Joplin. These works have been discussed and, in part, reproduced in my books Computers and Musical Style (1991), Experiments in Musical Intelligence (1996), and The Algorithmic Composer (2000) published by A-R Editions, Madison, Wisconsin and Virtual Music (2001) published by MIT Press.
Never huh AC


Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You disagreed and upon realizing how stupid your view was, you backed out and tried to worm and weasel your way into "What about viruses?" when nobody spoke about viruses. The debate started from the music discussion, a debate which you have no hope in.


Again highlighting your narrow understanding Machines I my mind are far more varied than nuts and bolts, that was your answer not mine


Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Fair enough. Not alive, active is more what I was looking for. My bad there.



Not even active outside of a host - again your lack of knowledge finds you out.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
On we go:



Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Human's aren't nuts and bolts machines, they're not machines in the common sense as I said, which you have apparently ignored haven't you? If you want to be technical and get into the specifics of BIOmechanics, then again, as I said, yes.

My argument was, is and will always be that humans aren't the same as nuts and bolts machines, man made tools and mechanisms, nor will they ever be. You continually ignore that point to your discredit.


Nope your original argument was machines can "never" feel emotion

I ask you what you considered a machine to be as to me humans are a lot of machines working together. I posted this widely accepted Scientific concept, which is an extension of of something 11 year olds understand called "levels of organization" which uses the "mechanistic model of biology".

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How childish, you disappoint me.

What the hell? So you're admitting to being childish and combining it with a claim I never said? In the recent thread where this machine "debate" came up, I said that no amount of computer technology or man made system will ever have the ability to produce music as emotional or "real" as a human band.



yes I admit to playing *** for tat I am childish often! As regards your statement thats an issue from the past and one I can easily find!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What the hell? So you're admitting to being childish and combining it with a claim I never said? In the recent thread where this machine "debate" came up, I said that no amount of computer technology or man made system will ever have the ability to produce music as emotional or "real" as a human band.

You disagreed and upon realizing how stupid your view was, you backed out and tried to worm and weasel your way into "What about viruses?" when nobody spoke about viruses. The debate started from the music discussion, a debate which you have no hope in.



Nope I never specified a type of machine I have merely shown your understanding of what a machine is "nuts and bolts" is to simple I used you ignorance on what a virus was to highlight this. I could have used an enzyme which is certainly a machine. I had no hope, actually I think computers will be able to mimic emotion pretty soon.

Ever heard of David Cope?

No......

here let me help

Professor David Cope
Department of Music
UC Santa Cruz
Title: Experiments in Musical Intelligence

Abstract:
I began Experiments in Musical Intelligence in 1981 as an attempt to create new instances of music in my style. With a lack of quantifiable definitions of style, I concentrated on the commonalties in the works of certain composers, commonalties I call signatures. By 1987 Experiments in Musical Intelligence had produced works (arguably) in the styles of Bach and Mozart, among others. Further experimentation allowed for more extensive output both in terms of work length and complexity as well as stylistic diversity. Experiments in Musical Intelligence subsequently produced new works in the styles of composers as contrasting as Stravinsky, Palestrina, and Joplin. These works have been discussed and, in part, reproduced in my books Computers and Musical Style (1991), Experiments in Musical Intelligence (1996), and The Algorithmic Composer (2000) published by A-R Editions, Madison, Wisconsin and Virtual Music (2001) published by MIT Press.
Never huh AC


Originally posted by Alpha Centauri



Secondly, will's and maybes' are just you saying what you think will happen. It's not about a lack of imagination, it's about me believing that machines in the traditional sense will never ever possess the compassionate intellect or emotion to make a masterpiece in art.

Agree? If not, prove it. You say they WILL in time be able to feel emotions, machines, man made systems. Prove it, if they WILL, if it's inevitable.

-AC

will's and maybes based on things lie David Copes experiments. Better than "wont's" based on no evidence. What do you consider a masterpiece in art to be. All to often it is a poor copy of nature. Fractal patterns which are generated randomly can certainly be art.


Anyway Computers have started composing - Cope played a game where he tested Musicians to see if they could work out which pieces were written by a computer and which were not. They couldn't.

Game Over!!!

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Nope I never specified a type of machine I have merely shown your understanding of what a machine is "nuts and bolts" is to simple I used you ignorance on what a virus was to highlight this. I could have used an enzyme which is certainly a machine. I had no hope, actually I think computers will be able to mimic emotion pretty soon.

Ever heard of David Cope?

No......

here let me help

Professor David Cope
Department of Music
UC Santa Cruz
Title: Experiments in Musical Intelligence

Abstract:
I began Experiments in Musical Intelligence in 1981 as an attempt to create new instances of music in my style. With a lack of quantifiable definitions of style, I concentrated on the commonalties in the works of certain composers, commonalties I call signatures. By 1987 Experiments in Musical Intelligence had produced works (arguably) in the styles of Bach and Mozart, among others. Further experimentation allowed for more extensive output both in terms of work length and complexity as well as stylistic diversity. Experiments in Musical Intelligence subsequently produced new works in the styles of composers as contrasting as Stravinsky, Palestrina, and Joplin. These works have been discussed and, in part, reproduced in my books Computers and Musical Style (1991), Experiments in Musical Intelligence (1996), and The Algorithmic Composer (2000) published by A-R Editions, Madison, Wisconsin and Virtual Music (2001) published by MIT Press.
Never huh AC

A) I'll believe-man made machines can have emotion when I see it for myself. Until that day, I'll not believe it to be possible. That's not a matter of me being narrow minded, it's a matter of me simply not believing one concept because I've got no reason to. Again with the cut and pasts, your credibility is dwindling.

B) "is to simple I used you ignorance on what a virus was to highlight this. I could have used an enzyme which is certainly a machine. I had no hope, actually I think computers will be able to mimic emotion pretty soon."

Too simple says who? You? Why is it ok for what you say and what you SPECULATE (because that is purely what it is, you have no fact to suggest otherwise) to become enough, but my belief based on what exists today, isn't? Quite hypocritical. YOU think computers and machines will mimic emotion? Mimic? They MIGHT be able to MIMIC in future, who ever mentioned that though? I was referring to the creation and manifestation of emotions on their own, independently. Which I don't believe will ever be possible.

You think what you want, you're the one with something to prove, not me. My point is already a factual state, machines don't have emotion now and as it stands, they won't. If it happens I'll admit my wrong.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Again highlighting your narrow understanding Machines I my mind are far more varied than nuts and bolts, that was your answer not mine

Go read my first post.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Not even active outside of a host - again your lack of knowledge finds you out.

They are active, they just can't access certain characteristics such as reproduction without a host. You posted that earlier also, again, read before pasting.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Nope your original argument was machines can "never" feel emotion

My actual quote was that no amount of computer technology will ever be AS emotional as a band of humans. Go dig the quote up and see for yourself. Read the posts, Whirly. You're losing the plot.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I ask you what you considered a machine to be as to me humans are a lot of machines working together. I posted this widely accepted Scientific concept, which is an extension of of something 11 year olds understand called "levels of organization" which uses the "mechanistic model of biology".

Go read my first post, what did I say? I said that it's widely accepted that many parts working together, regardless of being man made or not, are often viewed or cited as "a well oiled machine." In the traditional sense, they are nuts and bolts creations of man. Last time: Read the posts.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
will's and maybes based on things lie David Copes experiments. Better than "wont's" based on no evidence. What do you consider a masterpiece in art to be. All to often it is a poor copy of nature. Fractal patterns which are generated randomly can certainly be art.


Anyway Computers have started composing - Cope played a game where he tested Musicians to see if they could work out which pieces were written by a computer and which were not. They couldn't.

Game Over!!!

You claim my won't are based on no evidence? You called ME ignorant? The evidence is the world we live in. There's no indictation that machines well ever feel pain like a human, sadness, despair, happiness or elation. None whatsoever. Mimicry? Maybe, maybe. Independent? No, and I won't believe it until I see it. You're going by the future, which doesn't even exist yet.

Besides that copy and paste job that you posted twice (haha, lame and desperate) I'll judge this "game" that Cope played, you're clutching at straws. Now that you've realised that machines won't ever have independently born emotion equal to our own, you are trying to say "No, I mean the ability to MIMIC."

The musicians he chose simply couldn't tell the difference, it doesn't mean musicians can't. He could do it with 10, they might not notice. Then if you get 10 others, they most likely will.

One crucial part that seems to have slipped your oh so able mind: All the pieces on the computer were, at some point, played and recorded by humans. All the computer is doing is arranging, it's not playing the musical instruments or creating the music itself.

This is the irony: When you finally do start typing yourself, you talk utter nonsense.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
A) I'll believe-man made machines can have emotion when I see it for myself. Until that day, I'll not believe it to be possible. That's not a matter of me being narrow minded, it's a matter of me simply not believing one concept because I've got no reason to. Again with the cut and pasts, your credibility is dwindling.

B) "is to simple I used you ignorance on what a virus was to highlight this. I could have used an enzyme which is certainly a machine. I had no hope, actually I think computers will be able to mimic emotion pretty soon."

Too simple says who? You? Why is it ok for what you say and what you SPECULATE (because that is purely what it is, you have no fact to suggest otherwise) to become enough, but my belief based on what exists today, isn't? Quite hypocritical. YOU think computers and machines will mimic emotion? Mimic? They MIGHT be able to MIMIC in future, who ever mentioned that though? I was referring to the creation and manifestation of emotions on their own, independently. Which I don't believe will ever be possible.

You think what you want, you're the one with something to prove, not me. My point is already a factual state, machines don't have emotion now and as it stands, they won't. If it happens I'll admit my wrong.



Go read my first post.



They are active, they just can't access certain characteristics such as reproduction without a host. You posted that earlier also, again, read before pasting.



My actual quote was that no amount of computer technology will ever be AS emotional as a band of humans. Go dig the quote up and see for yourself. Read the posts, Whirly. You're losing the plot.



Go read my first post, what did I say? I said that it's widely accepted that many parts working together, regardless of being man made or not, are often viewed or cited as "a well oiled machine." In the traditional sense, they are nuts and bolts creations of man. Last time: Read the posts.



You claim my won't are based on no evidence? You called ME ignorant? The evidence is the world we live in. There's no indictation that machines well ever feel pain like a human, sadness, despair, happiness or elation. None whatsoever. Mimicry? Maybe, maybe. Independent? No, and I won't believe it until I see it. You're going by the future, which doesn't even exist yet.

Besides that copy and paste job that you posted twice (haha, lame and desperate) I'll judge this "game" that Cope played, you're clutching at straws. Now that you've realised that machines won't ever have independently born emotion equal to our own, you are trying to say "No, I mean the ability to MIMIC."

The musicians he chose simply couldn't tell the difference, it doesn't mean musicians can't. He could do it with 10, they might not notice. Then if you get 10 others, they most likely will.

One crucial part that seems to have slipped your oh so able mind: All the pieces on the computer were, at some point, played and recorded by humans. All the computer is doing is arranging, it's not playing the musical instruments or creating the music itself.

This is the irony: When you finally do start typing yourself, you talk utter nonsense.

-AC


long post I gave evidence again and even showed machines can compose music good enough to fool experts. You offer nothing but your opinion. No evidence.

Utter nonsense? No! Simply opinions based on theories which are beyond your education. Come back when you've graduated and realise all knowledge is built on the ideas of others.

I like to stand on the shoulder of giants AC. You should try it sometimes it gives opinions weight and substance. By saying I I I all the time you lack this.

Never say Never you're not a prophet!

Your whole post brings nothing to the table. Except your attempt at prophecy.

Machines can make music good enough to fool experts. They don't need emotion for that. You need maths.

You say machines will never feel emotion, I say it's possible I am not a prophet you are.

You say machines are nuts and bolts only then try to get out of it.

You bring nothing.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
long post I gave evidence again and even showed machines can compose music good enough to fool experts. You offer nothing but your opinion. No evidence.

Fooling experts? It's all humanly created music you fool. It's just put onto a computer and ARRANGED by the computer. You can buy programmes to do that in PC World.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Utter nonsense? No! Simply opinions based on theories which are beyond your education. Come back when you've graduated and realise all knowledge is built on the ideas of others.

Built on, not ripped from. Either way, you're sitting there acting as if you've won something when you're fighting a losing battle.

"I've proven machines created..." no you haven't. You've proven that it can accurately arrange pieces of music. It's not sitting there thinking and feeling, "This is so moving" is it? No. It's not playing the instruments is it? No.

That's all you've done though, posted stuff you believe. Big deal, Deano does that everyday. Congrats.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I like to stand on the shoulder of giants AC. You should try it sometimes it gives opinions weight and substance. By saying I I I all the time you lack this.

I know what I want to say and what my own opinion is and where my facts come from. I don't need to post massive essays to make my posts bigger. You don't, but when you do type yourself, you come up with such horsecrap like "Machines compose."

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Your whole post brings nothing to the table. Except your attempt at prophecy.

Machines can make music good enough to fool experts. They don't need emotion for that. You need maths.

One flaw: They're not making it. There's the kicker, you see.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
You say machines will never feel emotion, I say it's possible I am not a prophet you are.

As of right now, history and present are on my side. All you have is the conceptual future and what you believe to be possible. Not looking good for you.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
You say machines are nuts and bolts only then try to get out of it.

I did?

The first part of my first post:

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Metaphorically, people often refer to anything that consists of many individual parts working in harmony with one another, to be a "well oiled machine".

Hmm, shh.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Ok, so, now your name is Whob V2.

-AC

No your Kid Rock! right
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

I know about the rules of orchestral composing, don't assume that I do not. It's actually hilarious how you do say the exact same thing back to me and then act like you're proving me wrong or something.



Then you know that its maths

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They gave the computer the recordings first via a disklavier after a HUMAN had played them and transfered them onto the computer, it then has to be set to whatever key and structure the orchestra are playing to so that it can break it down and reconfigure it. You can do the same with any music program, granted that is more sophisticated, but that's what it does.


Yes the computer had to be programmed as does a human, your point is?

mine is this:

A Western college student must learn to "understand" a Beethoven symphony. The aboriginal understands his music naturally. The Westerner can understand aboriginal music also, if he is willing to learn its language and laws and listen to it in terms of itself. It cannot be compared with a Beethoven symphony because it has nothing to do with it. Machines need programming so do people.

Dr. George Johnston has argued with Computer music the "artists angst is all in your head".

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

How many times have you worked with music on a computer?


Misdirection - irrelevant

One common program that makes music like humans

Voyager: " The Voyager computer program is a powerful robot. It composes music--improvised, unpredictable music--using a virtual 64-piece orchestra. The Voyager?s inventor, George Lewis, improvises with his robotic partner, and creates music that we?d like to think only humans could make.


Game over again. I hope you're learning but I'd love some evidence of anything from you besides "I think" and "Whirly is stupid because he disagrees with me and provides evidence to support his arguments".

Keep the faith

Stay Whirly

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Yes the computer had to be programmed as does a human, your point is?

What's a computer without a human?

Game over, quite literally, for the computer. The human can go away, grab a guitar and make passionate music. The computer sits there gathering dust.

Hence why my points stand and yours do not. Not only do computers show no signs of being anywhere imaginably close to humans with regards to emotions, let alone having independent ones of their own, but they are useless without us.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
mine is this:

A Western college student must learn to "understand" a Beethoven symphony. The aboriginal understands his music naturally. The Westerner can understand aboriginal music also, if he is willing to learn its language and laws and listen to it in terms of itself. It cannot be compared with a Beethoven symphony because it has nothing to do with it. Machines need programming so do people.

Dr. George Johnston has argued with Computer music the "artists angst is all in your head".

Agreed, machines need to learn as do humans. You're missing the point now, though. Machines can ONLY learn if a human decides to teach it. If you sit there playing music, I can learn it and perceive it whether you want me to or not. Because humans have emotion and perception beyond that which any computer will have, if nowadays and history is anything to go by. I'll sit here and play the Moonlight Sonata with my computer off. We'll see how quickly it learns.

Again, your point falls flat.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Misdirection - irrelevant

No, quite relevant. If you've never worked with music programs on computers, don't try telling someone who has, how they work. Because you evidently have no clue.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
One common program that makes music like humans

Voyager: " The Voyager computer program is a powerful robot. It composes music--improvised, unpredictable music--using a virtual 64-piece orchestra. The Voyager?s inventor, George Lewis, improvises with his robotic partner, and creates music that we?d like to think only humans could make.

Hahaha, again you are proving yourself wrong, Whirly. Where do you think those sounds of the orchestra come from? The computer doesn't create them, humans do and humans DECIDE to teach the comp. The comp doesn't learn on it's own, the human decides to upload it and add it. The computer is not sentient, following me? Good. Then, even WITH this knowledge, the computer cannot create without a human telling it to.

It doesn't sit there thinking "Gonna whoop out a symphony." George Lewis uses it, it doesn't do anything alone.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, quite relevant. If you've never worked with music programs on computers, don't try telling someone who has, how they work. Because you evidently have no clue.


Nope I'm a geneticist and enzymologist, hence I understand machines. I have worked with AI. Your point if you don't understand AI you can't argue with me because I do?

Irrelavent

Requiem for the soul. If creating sublime music is the highest of human achievements, how come a pile of computer code writes better music than most people? By Bob Holmes. New Scientist Magazine. (August 9, 1997). "How could Mozart write a symphony more than 200 years after his death? Meet a computer program called EMI (pronounced Emmy) and its creator, a living, human composer named David Cope. Under Cope's tutelage, EMI created the 42nd symphony by analysing some of Mozart's other 41 and extracting 'essence of Mozart'."

New Scientist believe EMI "cretaes" sorry I'll take them over you!

Composer harnesses artificial intelligence to create music. By R. Colin Johnson. EE Times (December 30, 2002). "Just as IBM's Deep Blue showed the world a computer can play chess as well as a human master, Eduardo Reck Miranda, a researcher for the Sony Computer Science Laboratories Inc., aims to demonstrate a computer program able to compose original music. So far, neural networks have succeeded in imitating distinct musical styles, but truly original compositions have remained elusive. Miranda is tackling that problem with an orchestra of virtual musicians — called agents — that interact to compose original music. ... In his latest book, Composing Music with Computers (Focal Press), Miranda summarizes his AI research, which began with cellular automata and evolved into an 'adaptive games' strategy based on artificial-life models. ... For a computer to create truly novel compositions, Miranda has turned to artificial life (AL) models — the fodder for what he calls evolutionary musicology." It seems to be working.

Why I talked about artificial life you see it all comes together

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Nope I'm a geneticist and enzymologist, hence I understand machines. I have worked with AI. Your point if you don't understand AI you can't argue with me because I do?

So? You evidently know shit all about music: The creation of at least.

You've gone around in so many circles I could probably create a spirograph with your posts.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Requiem for the soul. If creating sublime music is the highest of human achievements, how come a pile of computer code writes better music than most people? By Bob Holmes. New Scientist Magazine. (August 9, 1997). "How could Mozart write a symphony more than 200 years after his death? Meet a computer program called EMI (pronounced Emmy) and its creator, a living, human composer named David Cope. Under Cope's tutelage, EMI created the 42nd symphony by analysing some of Mozart's other 41 and extracting 'essence of Mozart'."

New Scientist believe EMI "cretaes" sorry I'll take them over you!

Oh, how will I sleep knowing you chose someone else's opinion? I'll take my own facts on musical creation than a geneticist who has to get his info ripped directly from google and science magazines. You believe a publication if it makes you sleep better . Just don't call me stupid when you're the one believing what you read in "New Scientist" magazine. It's not the best claim considering you've just labelled yourself a geneticist.

All of what you just said proves that it has to be involved with a human, human teachings, human emotion, human insight, human tutelage.

Edit: As per usual, you edited your post with yet another google extract to prove my point. "Under the tutelage of..." "With the aid of..."

Computers can't do it alone, we both prove this. You indirectly so.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


Oh, how will I sleep knowing you chose someone else's opinion? I'll take my own facts on musical creation than a geneticist who has to get his info ripped directly from google and science magazines. You believe a publication if it makes you sleep better . Just don't call me stupid when you're the one believing what you read in "New Scientist" magazine. It's not the best claim considering you've just labelled yourself a geneticist.

All of what you just said proves that it has to be involved with a human, human teachings, human emotion, human insight, human tutelage.

-AC

Composer harnesses artificial intelligence to create music. By R. Colin Johnson. EE Times (December 30, 2002). "Just as IBM's Deep Blue showed the world a computer can play chess as well as a human master, Eduardo Reck Miranda, a researcher for the Sony Computer Science Laboratories Inc., aims to demonstrate a computer program able to compose original music. So far, neural networks have succeeded in imitating distinct musical styles, but truly original compositions have remained elusive. Miranda is tackling that problem with an orchestra of virtual musicians — called agents — that interact to compose original music. ... In his latest book, Composing Music with Computers (Focal Press), Miranda summarizes his AI research, which began with cellular automata and evolved into an 'adaptive games' strategy based on artificial-life models. ... For a computer to create truly novel compositions, Miranda has turned to artificial life (AL) models — the fodder for what he calls evolutionary musicology." It seems to be working.

Why I talked about artificial life you see it all comes together

Again you offer nothing except - "Whirly is stupid he believes credible publications over me".

Yes Whirly, you pass "Look Mum! I can use Google.com 101". Your trophy is in the mail.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, you just consider viruses to be machines. They're living organisms, not mechanical, synthetic "organisms."


back to that.

Everyone with a Science degree who has posted has told you viruses are not alive.

Another accepted view

Nori Kasahara, M.D., Ph.D., assistant professor of pathology and biochemistry, and one of the newest members of the Institute for Genetic Medicine and the USC/Norris Cancer Center, specializes in developing miniature packages to ferry genes to their ultimate destination. His strategy involves nesting the genes inside disabled viruses, or vectors, and then allowing the viruses to infect target cells.


"Viruses are machines that have evolved over millions of years specifically to put their DNA or RNA into a host cell," says Kasahara. "So it's beneficial to take advantage of their natural properties."

http://www.usc.edu/hsc/info/pr/ccr/96fall/nori.html

You are boring me AC

The debate really seems to be over the definition of what constitutes something as being "alive." Both AC and Whirly have different interpretations over stated definitions.

From a scientific perspective..Whirly is indeed correct about virus's not being alive.

However from a philosophical perspective..one could indeed say that AC is actually correct about them being "alive."

Moving on. My opinion about the original topic. Many of the natural processes/components that make up the human body are indeed mechanical, however, science is incapable determing/understanding/duplicating all of these processes. Those processes that are not capable of being duplicated exist within a realm which is foreign to scientists and most of humanity..that realm being the supernatural.

My two cents...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Those processes that are not capable of being duplicated exist within a realm which is foreign to scientists and most of humanity..that realm being the supernatural.


Yup you and AC believe far more in the Supernatural than I that's true.

Words meanings have a tendency to change as things progress. Not sure if using todays verbage amounts to tomorrows "progress."

Originally posted by soleran30
Words meanings have a tendency to change as things progress. Not sure if using todays verbage amounts to tomorrows "progress."

Agreed!

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
back to that.

Everyone with a Science degree who has posted has told you viruses are not alive.

Another accepted view

Nori Kasahara, M.D., Ph.D., assistant professor of pathology and biochemistry, and one of the newest members of the Institute for Genetic Medicine and the USC/Norris Cancer Center, specializes in developing miniature packages to ferry genes to their ultimate destination. His strategy involves nesting the genes inside disabled viruses, or vectors, and then allowing the viruses to infect target cells.


"Viruses are machines that have evolved over millions of years specifically to put their DNA or RNA into a host cell," says Kasahara. "So it's beneficial to take advantage of their natural properties."

http://www.usc.edu/hsc/info/pr/ccr/96fall/nori.html

You are boring me AC

What's your point? Going back to what? We've been over that. That's not relevant to why the topic was started, the emotion/machine/human debate was. The one you just abandoned.

Go back and deal with the actual purpose of the topic.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What's your point? Going back to what? We've been over that.
-AC

Point is you didn't know what you were talking about at the beginning of the thread

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's not relevant to why the topic was started, the emotion/machine/human debate was. -AC

Rewriting the topic again. You said Machines could not write music as vibrant as humans. I've shown already early music composing and analysing machines like EMI already can do a pretty good job of it.

Lopez de Mantaras, Ramon and Josep Lluis Arcos. 2002. AI and Music: From Composition to Expressive Performance. AI Magazine 23(3): 43-58. "In this article, we first survey the three major types of computer music systems based on AI techniques: (1) compositional, (2) improvisational, and (3) performance systems. Representative examples of each type are briefly described. Then, we look in more detail at the problem of endowing the resulting performances with the expressiveness that characterizes human-generated music. This is one of the most challenging aspects of computer music that has been addressed just recently. The main problem in modeling expressiveness is to grasp the performer's 'touch,' that is, the knowledge applied when performing a score. Humans acquire it through a long process of observation and imitation. For this reason, previous approaches, based on following musical rules trying to capture interpretation knowledge, had serious limitations. An alternative approach, much closer to the observation-imitation process observed in humans, is that of directly using the interpretation knowledge implicit in examples extracted from recordings of human performers instead of trying to make explicit such knowledge. In the last part of the article, we report on a performance system, SAXEX, based on this alternative approach, that is capable of generating high-quality expressive solo performances of jazz ballads based on examples of human performers within a case-based reasoning (CBR) system."

already we are modelling the performers touch!!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Go back and deal with the actual purpose of the topic.

-AC

Which was what is a machine, I have already shown a machine has far for definitions than you thought and can do things you thought only humans could do!

Show me something - anything to refute all my "expert witnesses". Thats the point of Secondary Sources AC. You're good at arguing I grant you, but you never bring anything to the table but opinion. Sometimes that's enough. Often it isn't.

Keep the faith

Stay Whirly

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Point is you didn't know what you were talking about at the beginning of the thread

Oh dear, Whirly. Look:

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Rewriting the topic again. You said Machines could not write music as vibrant as humans. I've shown already early music composing and analysing machines like EMI already can do a pretty good job of it.

They didn't create it. What part of that do you find unable to comprehend? It's all created and given to the computer by humans, do you not understand this? This is fact. The computers are not creating the music and sitting there being moved by it. It's fed to them like when you install a game. It's just a tool for use in this case.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Lopez de Mantaras, Ramon and Josep Lluis Arcos. 2002. AI and Music: From Composition to Expressive Performance. AI Magazine 23(3): 43-58. "In this article, we first survey the three major types of computer music systems based on AI techniques: (1) compositional, (2) improvisational, and (3) performance systems. Representative examples of each type are briefly described. Then, we look in more detail at the problem of endowing the resulting performances with the expressiveness that characterizes human-generated music. This is one of the most challenging aspects of computer music that has been addressed just recently. The main problem in modeling expressiveness is to grasp the performer's 'touch,' that is, the knowledge applied when performing a score. Humans acquire it through a long process of observation and imitation. For this reason, previous approaches, based on following musical rules trying to capture interpretation knowledge, had serious limitations. An alternative approach, much closer to the observation-imitation process observed in humans, is that of directly using the interpretation knowledge implicit in examples extracted from recordings of human performers instead of trying to make explicit such knowledge. In the last part of the article, we report on a performance system, SAXEX, based on this alternative approach, that is capable of generating high-quality expressive solo performances of jazz ballads based on examples of human performers within a case-based reasoning (CBR) system."

already we are modelling the performers touch!!

I sometimes do feel like I'm talking to Jimmy from South Park with you Whirly. "THIS is my point." "Well tha-well tha- well that's wr-wrong AC. Now wait another 10 pages.........repeat your point please."

Look, WITHOUT ANY HUMANS the computer is obsolete.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Which was what is a machine, I have already shown a machine has far for definitions than you thought and can do things you thought only humans could do!

Show me something - anything to refute all my "expert witnesses". Thats the point of Secondary Sources AC. You're good at arguing I grant you, but you never bring anything to the table but opinion. Sometimes that's enough. Often it isn't.

Keep the faith

Stay Whirly

It can't do things only humans can do, you've not proven that. It can't play a guitar or an instrument, it can't think of music from scratch. It has it all fed to it by humans.

Your expert witnesses are the same as the ones you tried pulling out in the other debate we had, google. Pathetic, anyone can do that.

I'm not bringing opinion Whirly, well not solely.

Machines do not create the music, they arrange it and you can buy programs to do so in any PC store. I've used programs as such. They learn, humans learn, the difference is, I can learn by looking out my window. I can decide when I want to learn and how, and perceive it with emotion. Machines cannot.

End.

-AC

Seeing as the previous two posts contained about two lines of relevancy, I'll reply to those. None of your quotes or excerpts (which I have read) contain anything that discredits my argument.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Which bit don't you get Computers are programmed as are humans. A computer is programmed to recognise patterns analyse them and create similar patterns. As are people.

A computer's sole purpose is to be programmed to do our bidding, this isn't the sole purpose of a human. You are quite stupid aren't you? Humans as programmable as computers? Are you serious?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Thats OK sometimes I feel like I'm talking to twenty year old with no understanding of Science I am.

Hahaha, good one Mr. Humans are equally programmable as Computers.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
hmm ... You use Obsolete to mean no longer in use - correct, debatetable but irrelevant.

Irrelevant? How is it? It's the very debate we're discussing. End of story then. If you agree that humans can exist without computers, but the vice versa is not possible, then you are proving yourself wrong and me right.

Because computers can't do anything musical or ANYTHING at all without humans. The only way technology advances is if we allow it.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Humans can't think of music from scratch either. They have to learn the rules which have evolved. They didn't produce music immediatly.

Actually like talking to a brick wall. What are you not getting? The rules exist but they're used more like guidelines than anything.

Here, I'll say it again:

Humans can decide when they want to learn and how, they aren't dependent on being taught by someone else. They can self-teach.

Computers cannot, my computer will be out of date at some point and unless I choose to feed it new upgrades, it will plunge further into being obsolete. Therefore, if computers cannot do things without human assistance, how do you figure they will ever reach this mythical height of independence?

-AC

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Biomechanics would argue men are machines!
Some cognitive scientists would argue the brain is a machine and emotion is a set of computer viruses that create our conciousness, that we are purely a product of infection! What do you think! I will post later

A machine is, for example is my computer

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
A computer's sole purpose is to be programmed to do our bidding, this isn't the sole purpose of a human. You are quite stupid aren't you? Humans as programmable as computers? Are you serious?


God you're thick, rude and ignorant a response to your outburst .

Humans are programmed it's called Education/ Socialization. I have some, you don't obviously.

Human beings are "programmed" in two important ways: by nature and by nurture. We are not the authors of our own intelligent abilities. First, our brains are complex organs that have built into them the mechanisms that make possible our reasoning abilities. YOU did not design or build your own brain. Either nature did (through evolution) or God did. But in either case, you don't get credit for it. Second, you have been taught and trained by many people, you have been nurtured. If you were raised by wolves, you wouldn't speak a language and you would be incapable of many forms of reasoning that you now take for granted. The training that you have received from other people is a kind of programming. Yes, the capacities that machines have were "built in" by humans, but the capacities that we have were "built in" as well. Humans are programmed, at least in a certain broad sense of "being programmed."

Originally posted by Alpha



End of story then. If you agree that humans can exist without computers, but the vice versa is not possible, then you are proving yourself wrong and me right.



Once programmed Computers can act on that programming like humans act on theirs. A baby can't survive on its own! No I keep proving your ignorance.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Because computers can't do anything musical or ANYTHING at all without humans. The only way technology advances is if we allow it.


Everything is programmed humans and machines, evolutionary algorithms do not need humans once activated as long as the power is maintained.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


Humans can decide when they want to learn and how, they aren't dependent on being taught by someone else. They can self-teach.



They can self teach if the stimuli is available you choose stimuli based on your previous programming.

Primitive but proves my point

By Will Knight. New Scientist News (January 24, 2005). "A computer that learns to play a 'scissors, paper, stone' by observing and mimicking human players could lead to machines that automatically learn how to spot an intruder or perform vital maintenance work, say UK researchers. CogVis, developed by scientists at the University of Leeds in Yorkshire, UK, teaches itself how to play the children's game by searching for patterns in video and audio of human players and then building its own 'hypotheses' about the game's rules. In contrast to older artificial intelligence (AI) programs that mimic human behavior using hard-coded rules, CogVis takes a more human approach, learning through observation and mimicry, the researchers say. ... 'A system that can observe events in an unknown scenario, learn and participate just as a child would is almost the Holy Grail of AI,' says Derek Magee from the University of Leeds." Be sure to see the sidebar with related articles & web sites.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


Computers cannot, my computer will be out of date at some point and unless I choose to feed it new upgrades, it will plunge further into being obsolete. Therefore, if computers cannot do things without human assistance, how do you figure they will ever reach this mythical height of independence?

-AC

Well the quotes I posted on self evolving algorithms and neural bio computers (both exist in embryonic forms already) as previously illustrated should show you how!

You really do know very little

Bless you - Secondary sources to support your arguments please. You have provided none.

On how we are programmed AC have you ever heard of Memes?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
God you're thick, rude and ignorant a response to your outburst .

Humans are programmed it's called Education/ Socialization. I have some, you don't obviously.

Haha, put the handbag down Gretchen. It's KMC, not the smokey bingo hall on a Sunday night.

Humans are genetically wired certain ways, yes. I never denied this did I? You proposed they were AS programmable as computers. We both know this is false.

Moving on.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Human beings are "programmed" in two important ways: by nature and by nurture. We are not the authors of our own intelligent abilities. First, our brains are complex organs that have built into them the mechanisms that make possible our reasoning abilities. YOU did not design or build your own brain. Either nature did (through evolution) or God did. But in either case, you don't get credit for it. Second, you have been taught and trained by many people, you have been nurtured. If you were raised by wolves, you wouldn't speak a language and you would be incapable of many forms of reasoning that you now take for granted. The training that you have received from other people is a kind of programming. Yes, the capacities that machines have were "built in" by humans, but the capacities that we have were "built in" as well. Humans are programmed, at least in a certain broad sense of "being programmed."

Yes, but as programmable as computers, who's sole purpose it is to be programmed again and again? No.

Stop making a point then changing what I say so you have something to counter. It's pathetic and cowardly.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Once programmed Computers can act on that programming like humans act on theirs. A baby can't survive on its own! No I keep proving your ignorance.

A baby can't SURVIVE on it's own, no. This is only because of the beginning stages. Your computer doesn't get stronger and more self sufficient as it gets older, it gets worse. Why? Because technology advances. Why? Because HUMANS are advancing it. Without humans, these far away fairy theories of independent sentient thought that computers will have, would never even exist. Nor do I believe it will anyway.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Everything is programmed humans and machines, evolutionary algorithms do not need humans once activated as long as the power is maintained.

WHO said that humans weren't "programmable"? Me? No. You? No. Who said humans were as programmable as computers? You? Yes. Me? No.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
They can self teach if the stimuli is available you choose stimuli based on your previous programming.

Yeah, everything they do relies on the human wanting to give them the ability to do so. Computers don't choose for humans, humans choose for computers.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Primitive but proves my point

By Will Knight. New Scientist News (January 24, 2005). "A computer that learns to play a 'scissors, paper, stone' by observing and mimicking human players could lead to machines that automatically learn how to spot an intruder or perform vital maintenance work, say UK researchers. CogVis, developed by scientists at the University of Leeds in Yorkshire, UK, teaches itself how to play the children's game by searching for patterns in video and audio of human players and then building its own 'hypotheses' about the game's rules. In contrast to older artificial intelligence (AI) programs that mimic human behavior using hard-coded rules, CogVis takes a more human approach, learning through observation and mimicry, the researchers say. ... 'A system that can observe events in an unknown scenario, learn and participate just as a child would is almost the Holy Grail of AI,' says Derek Magee from the University of Leeds." Be sure to see the sidebar with related articles & web sites.

Another googlism...tsk tsk. Nothing new. Rest assured, I AM reading these quotes, they're just not proving anything that holds down your argument. Maybe because you're changing it every five minutes.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Well the quotes I posted on self evolving algorithms and neural bio computers (both exist in embryonic forms already) as previously illustrated should show you how!

You really do know very little

It shows me how you get your OPINION and belief that this will occur, yes. You have every right to that, but what you must understand is that I'm not denying that the ability of computers will grow, especially in the area of mimicry, but that will ALWAYS be derived from human constants. It will never be solely created from them. They may become as able as we are at the arrangement and catagorisation, very much so, but they will never be able to create a symphony.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Bless you - Secondary sources to support your arguments please. You have provided none.

Primary sources to support your arguments please, you have provided none. I've provided no secondary sources because I don't need them to explain the simplicity of what my points are.

You do.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Haha, put the handbag down Gretchen. It's KMC, not the smokey bingo hall on a Sunday night.

Humans are genetically wired certain ways, yes. I never denied this did I? You proposed they were AS programmable as computers. We both know this is false.


-AC

It's not just about Genetic wiring I asked if you had hear of Memes.

I am going to use Richard Dawkins to explain.

Viruses of the Mind ?Richard Dawkins
1991
The haven all memes depend on reaching is the human mind, but a human mind is itself an artifact created when memes restructure a human brain in order to make it a better habitat for memes. The avenues for entry and departure are modified to suit local conditions, and strengthened by various artificial devices that enhance fidelity and prolixity of replication: native Chinese minds differ dramatically from native French minds, and literate minds differ from illiterate minds. What memes provide in return to the organisms in which they reside is an incalculable store of advantages --- with some Trojan horses thrown in for good measure. . .
Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained
1 Duplication Fodder
A beautiful child close to me, six and the apple of her father's eye, believes that Thomas the Tank Engine really exists. She believes in Father Christmas, and when she grows up her ambition is to be a tooth fairy. She and her school-friends believe the solemn word of respected adults that tooth fairies and Father Christmas really exist. This little girl is of an age to believe whatever you tell her. If you tell her about witches changing princes into frogs she will believe you. If you tell her that bad children roast forever in hell she will have nightmares. I have just discovered that without her father's consent this sweet, trusting, gullible six-year-old is being sent, for weekly instruction, to a Roman Catholic nun. What chance has she?
A human child is shaped by evolution to soak up the culture of her people. Most obviously, she learns the essentials of their language in a matter of months. A large dictionary of words to speak, an encyclopedia of information to speak about, complicated syntactic and semantic rules to order the speaking, are all transferred from older brains into hers well before she reaches half her adult size. When you are pre-programmed to absorb useful information at a high rate, it is hard to shut out pernicious or damaging information at the same time. With so many mindbytes to be downloaded, so many mental codons to be replicated, it is no wonder that child brains are gullible, open to almost any suggestion, vulnerable to subversion, easy prey to Moonies, Scientologists and nuns. Like immune-deficient patients, children are wide open to mental infections that adults might brush off without effort.
DNA, too, includes parasitic code. Cellular machinery is extremely good at copying DNA. Where DNA is concerned, it seems to have an eagerness to copy, seems eager to be copied. The cell nucleus is a paradise for DNA, humming with sophisticated, fast, and accurate duplicating machinery.
Cellular machinery is so friendly towards DNA duplication that it is small wonder cells play host to DNA parasites --- viruses, viroids, plasmids and a riff-raff of other genetic fellow travelers. Parasitic DNA even gets itself spliced seamlessly into the chromosomes themselves. ``Jumping genes'' and stretches of ``selfish DNA'' cut or copy themselves out of chromosomes and paste themselves in elsewhere. Deadly oncogenes are almost impossible to distinguish from the legitimate genes between which they are spliced. In evolutionary time, there is probably a continual traffic from ``straight'' genes to ``outlaw,'' and back again (Dawkins, 1982). DNA is just DNA. The only thing that distinguishes viral DNA from host DNA is its expected method of passing into future generations. ``Legitimate'' host DNA is just DNA that aspires to pass into the next generation via the orthodox route of sperm or egg. ``Outlaw'' or parasitic DNA is just DNA that looks to a quicker, less cooperative route to the future, via a squeezed droplet or a smear of blood, rather than via a sperm or egg.
For data on a floppy disc, a computer is a humming paradise just as cell nuclei hum with eagerness to duplicate DNA. Computers and their associated disc and tape readers are designed with high fidelity in mind. As with DNA molecules, magnetized bytes don't literally ``want'' to be faithfully copied. Nevertheless, you can write a computer program that takes steps to duplicate itself. Not just duplicate itself within one computer but spread itself to other computers. Computers are so good at copying bytes, and so good at faithfully obeying the instructions contained in those bytes, that they are sitting ducks to self-replicating programs: wide open to subversion by software parasites.


Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, but as programmable as computers, who's sole purpose it is to be programmed again and again? No.

Stop making a point then changing what I say so you have something to counter. It's pathetic and cowardly.





The purpose of a reprogrammable computer is to be programmed again and again, the purpose of a learning algorithm is to improve at whatever it is learning.

I haven't changed what you said I have quoted you. The irony of his coming from you mate is hilarious.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
A baby can't SURVIVE on it's own, no. This is only because of the beginning stages. Your computer doesn't get stronger and more self sufficient as it gets older, it gets worse. Why? Because technology advances. Why? Because HUMANS are advancing it. Without humans, these far away fairy theories of independent sentient thought that computers will have, would never even exist. Nor do I believe it will anyway.



Ahh.. but computers improve as you add more programs, until they get old, humans are the same. You are entitled to your belief but I am entitled to disagree.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

WHO said that humans weren't "programmable"? Me? No. You? No. Who said humans were as programmable as computers? You? Yes. Me? No.



Humans in some ways are more programmable Society could be considered an example of this. Again I cite Memes theory, you get that now right.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


Another googlism...tsk tsk. Nothing new. Rest assured, I AM reading these quotes, they're just not proving anything that holds down your argument. Maybe because you're changing it every five minutes.



More Flim Flam to use Google to support your arguments you have to know about things like Memes?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


Primary sources to support your arguments please, you have provided none. I've provided no secondary sources because I don't need them to explain the simplicity of what my points are.

You do.

-AC

I have provided both, Your "opinion" argument is amusing.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Haha, put the handbag down Gretchen. It's KMC, not the smokey bingo hall on a Sunday night.


I will do - if you do, as you picked it up first

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
It's not just about Genetic wiring I asked if you had hear of Memes.

I am going to use Richard Dawkins to explain.

Viruses of the Mind ?Richard Dawkins
1991
The haven all memes depend on reaching is the human mind, but a human mind is itself an artifact created when memes restructure a human brain in order to make it a better habitat for memes. The avenues for entry and departure are modified to suit local conditions, and strengthened by various artificial devices that enhance fidelity and prolixity of replication: native Chinese minds differ dramatically from native French minds, and literate minds differ from illiterate minds. What memes provide in return to the organisms in which they reside is an incalculable store of advantages --- with some Trojan horses thrown in for good measure. . .
Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained
1 Duplication Fodder
A beautiful child close to me, six and the apple of her father's eye, believes that Thomas the Tank Engine really exists. She believes in Father Christmas, and when she grows up her ambition is to be a tooth fairy. She and her school-friends believe the solemn word of respected adults that tooth fairies and Father Christmas really exist. This little girl is of an age to believe whatever you tell her. If you tell her about witches changing princes into frogs she will believe you. If you tell her that bad children roast forever in hell she will have nightmares. I have just discovered that without her father's consent this sweet, trusting, gullible six-year-old is being sent, for weekly instruction, to a Roman Catholic nun. What chance has she?
A human child is shaped by evolution to soak up the culture of her people. Most obviously, she learns the essentials of their language in a matter of months. A large dictionary of words to speak, an encyclopedia of information to speak about, complicated syntactic and semantic rules to order the speaking, are all transferred from older brains into hers well before she reaches half her adult size. When you are pre-programmed to absorb useful information at a high rate, it is hard to shut out pernicious or damaging information at the same time. With so many mindbytes to be downloaded, so many mental codons to be replicated, it is no wonder that child brains are gullible, open to almost any suggestion, vulnerable to subversion, easy prey to Moonies, Scientologists and nuns. Like immune-deficient patients, children are wide open to mental infections that adults might brush off without effort.
DNA, too, includes parasitic code. Cellular machinery is extremely good at copying DNA. Where DNA is concerned, it seems to have an eagerness to copy, seems eager to be copied. The cell nucleus is a paradise for DNA, humming with sophisticated, fast, and accurate duplicating machinery.
Cellular machinery is so friendly towards DNA duplication that it is small wonder cells play host to DNA parasites --- viruses, viroids, plasmids and a riff-raff of other genetic fellow travelers. Parasitic DNA even gets itself spliced seamlessly into the chromosomes themselves. ``Jumping genes'' and stretches of ``selfish DNA'' cut or copy themselves out of chromosomes and paste themselves in elsewhere. Deadly oncogenes are almost impossible to distinguish from the legitimate genes between which they are spliced. In evolutionary time, there is probably a continual traffic from ``straight'' genes to ``outlaw,'' and back again (Dawkins, 1982). DNA is just DNA. The only thing that distinguishes viral DNA from host DNA is its expected method of passing into future generations. ``Legitimate'' host DNA is just DNA that aspires to pass into the next generation via the orthodox route of sperm or egg. ``Outlaw'' or parasitic DNA is just DNA that looks to a quicker, less cooperative route to the future, via a squeezed droplet or a smear of blood, rather than via a sperm or egg.
For data on a floppy disc, a computer is a humming paradise just as cell nuclei hum with eagerness to duplicate DNA. Computers and their associated disc and tape readers are designed with high fidelity in mind. As with DNA molecules, magnetized bytes don't literally ``want'' to be faithfully copied. Nevertheless, you can write a computer program that takes steps to duplicate itself. Not just duplicate itself within one computer but spread itself to other computers. Computers are so good at copying bytes, and so good at faithfully obeying the instructions contained in those bytes, that they are sitting ducks to self-replicating programs: wide open to subversion by software parasites.

Stop this, speak for yourself. You're becoming Deano V2.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
The purpose of a reprogrammable computer is to be programmed again and again, the purpose of a learning algorithm is to improve at whatever it is learning.

Exactly. Who improves technology? Humans. How? Because we are learning more. If we don't, computers won't. We didn't have Pentium 4 processors back in 1980 did we? No.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I haven't changed what you said I have quoted you. The irony of his coming from you mate is hilarious.

You are. Whether you realise it or not, you are. Maybe it's unintentional, but you're either answering the wrong quotes with the wrong answers or something else then, because you've misconstrued many of my points.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Ahh.. but computers improve as you add more programs, until they get old, humans are the same. You are entitled to your belief but I am entitled to disagree as we

For crying out loud...*Retrieves Etch-a-Sketch*

Right, here we have a computer, and here we have a human. The human will learn when it wants, how it wants for as long as it wants to. Fact. The computer will only "learn" what is "taught" to it as and when it is needed, it relies on the human to gain it's knowledge and to be taught. If you hold the box of Norton Anti-Virus up to the monitor, it doesn't go "Hmm, might learn that."

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Humans in some ways are more programmable Society could be considered an example of this. Again I cite Memes theory, you get that now right.

Computers are by default, the more programmable as it's their primary purpose. Let's let that go, it's simple.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
More Flim Flam to use Google to support your arguments you have to know about things like Memes?

No but if I wanted copy and pastes of the same story in slightly changed overtones I'd go to Deano. I've read what you post and none of it disproves my point, only what you believe to be my point.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Stop this, speak for yourself. You're becoming Deano V2.

-AC

or Deano Ctrl + V 2

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Stop this, speak for yourself. You're becoming Deano V2.


-AC

Not really because Richard Dawkins etc. is not Rense or David Icke - A very bad comparison.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Exactly. Who improves technology? Humans. How? Because we are learning more. If we don't, computers won't. We didn't have Pentium 4 processors back in 1980 did we? No.


-AC

We created computers, no-ones doubts that you said they could not evolve I explained some algorithms were able to learn and gave examples of several methods they do this. You are discussing Hardware, I am discussing Software and where we can expect initially human created computers abilities to end up. I think you missed the point on purpose. However originally I was only arguing machines could create music based on musical rules and interpret them based on performers rules. Two claims I have backed with Secondary sources. I argue in the future they will be even more autonomous. How much I don't know and neither do you. Moot point.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

You are. Whether you realize it or not, you are. Maybe it's unintentional, but you're either answering the wrong quotes with the wrong answers or something else then, because you've misconstrued many of my points.



I am saying the same of you! I think though its because you are caught up in the music aspect of the debate and lack the other specialized knowledge.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


For crying out loud...*Retrieves Etch-a-Sketch*



Please we had your ball you wanted to bounce before, put your etch a sketch away I don't want to see your picture of a house.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Right, here we have a computer, and here we have a human. The human will learn when it wants, how it wants for as long as it wants to. Fact. The computer will only "learn" what is "taught" to it as and when it is needed, it relies on the human to gain it's knowledge and to be taught. If you hold the box of Norton Anti-Virus up to the monitor, it doesn't go "Hmm, might learn that."

Computers are by default, the more programmable as it's their primary purpose. Let's let that go, it's simple.



It really isn't that simple, People don't learn what they want, they first learn what they need to survive. This is an operating system. They then learn what the need to function this is the software. The choices are based on the input they are exposed to. As Computers (made by man at present) become more able to process information this is likely to happen. Computer AI is beyond insect level now. Thats about a billion years of evolution in 40 years Oh and it's speeding up. True AI in sixty years at this rate. Ever heard of the Singularity.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


No but if I wanted copy and pastes of the same story in slightly changed overtones I'd go to Deano. I've read what you post and none of it disproves my point, only what you believe to be my point.

-AC

Again Dawkin is not Rense neither is any of the other links I've posted.

Selective Sources, try them, they will help you.

The Deano comparisons come from your penchant for posting links or pasting chunks of text.

Here's the deal, here's how debates work: If you're not going to take the time to put across your argument yourself, then I'm not taking the time to deal with those parts of your post.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
We created computers, no-ones doubts that you said they could not evolve I explained some algorithms were able to learn and gave examples of several methods they do this. You are discussing Hardware, I am discussing Software and where we can expect initially human created computers abilities to end up. I think you missed the point on purpose. However originally I was only arguing machines could create music based on musical rules and interpret them based on performers rules. Two claims I have backed with Secondary sources. I argue in the future they will be even more autonomous. How much I don't know and neither do you. Moot point.

The only way machines could interpret is if a program is created BY humans and TAUGHT to the computer. They won't independently learn that on their own.

You confuse that issue way too much. It is a FACT....a FACT....that they are not creating the music. End of story. They haven't created, they have arranged.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I am saying the same of you! I think though its because you are caught up in the music aspect of the debate and lack the other specialized knowledge.

That's what it started from and the principle is the same.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
It really isn't that simple, People don't learn what they want, they first learn what they need to survive. This is an operating system. They then learn what the need to function this is the software. The choices are based on the input they are exposed to. As Computers (made by man at present) become more able to process information this is likely to happen. Computer AI is beyond insect level now. Thats about a billion years of evolution in 40 years Oh and it's speeding up. True AI in sixty years at this rate. Ever heard of the Singularity.

I'm not denying that "AI" will evolve, but I refuse to believe that it will ever be possible for man made machines and/or autonomous constructions to feel emotion as we do.

Why do you think it's called artificial intelligence? Think about that for a second. It's not called ARTIFICIAL intelligence because they create it themselves. Computers are only as smart as the human race makes them.

-AC

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
because you can't

I've read each and every one that you've posted. There's nothing to deal with, there's seriously not. They all amount to the same point via a different route. That being that there is progression in the areas of computer technology connected with human experiences. I've dealt with that all over this thread anyway.

But no, to be specific, the reason I choose not to "deal" with them isn't because I can't, it's because you're not taking the time to contribute so I'm not gonna bother with those parts. I don't get why you take pride when they're not even your opinions anyway.

It's not like you are posting independent thought after thought.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Secondly, Neither do humans, the rules evolved over hundreds of years, humans learn these rules.

Human's don't sit around doing nothing. From birth they are perceiving the world around them, they're not vegetables until someone says "HEY! Learn this!" You have an incredibly naive view.

With regards to the quote you messed up:

AGAIN, for the love of intellect, all it shows is that the computer is very advanced at ARRANGING. If you turn a computer on, the most powerful computer in the world, and you completely ignore it and leave it, it cannot learn and play a song. It's just....how can you even maintain that?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Again you engage in prophecy!

Oh? Let's see this:

Another secondary source with a different opinion, I'm not saying he's right

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Abstract
Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.


If you took a break from trying to come across as the next Christopher Lambert in Highlander, you'd realise that you are doing everything you accuse me of and in the pricess, digging yourself deeper into the hole.

The above quote is utter speculation and there is nothing to suggest this will happen.

-AC

wow AC, after reading these pages I am not sure of your expectations............you are not sure of future results howver you say you think that certain things will occurr................please specify.

Originally posted by soleran30
wow AC, after reading these pages I am not sure of your expectations............you are not sure of future results howver you say you think that certain things will occurr................please specify.

I know he can fool some of the people some of the time but he doesn't really understand anything I have posted.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Biomechanics would argue men are machines!
Some cognitive scientists would argue the brain is a machine and emotion is a set of computer viruses that create our conciousness, that we are purely a product of infection! What do you think! I will post later

I don't think a Human is a machine because of our ability to change our purpose to any situation and think independently. Machines cannot do this.

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
I don't think a Human is a machine because of our ability to change our purpose to any situation and think independently. Machines cannot do this.

Yet

Humans can adapt to any situation can they Please expand

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Yet

Humans can adapt to any situation can they Please expand


Give me a situation.

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
Give me a situation.

You told me humans can adapt to any situation. So explain what you think that statement means.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
You told me humans can adapt to any situation. So explain what you think that statement means.

Humans change to fit their surroundings, Such as Inuits you can note the difference in their physical appearance to people from Europe or Africa.
Or if you stick them in front of a river that the humans have to cross they will build a bridge.

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
Humans change to fit their surroundings, Such as Inuits you can note the difference in their physical appearance to people from Europe or Africa.
Or if you stick them in front of a river that the humans have to cross they will build a bridge.

Your talking about natural selection and adaptability in one post.

The inuits are a product of environmental evolutionary adaptation.

http://lslwww.epfl.ch/biowall/Articles/teuscher01_ipcat01.pdf

The authors are with the Logic Systems Laboratory, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne,
CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. E-mail:
{name.surname}@epfl.ch. Web: http://lslwww.epfl.ch. This work
was supported in part by the Swiss National Science Foundation under grant 21-54113.89, by the Leenaards
Foundation, Lausanne, Switzerland, and by the Villa Reuge, Ste-Croix, Switzerland.

Evolutionary computing works towads this with some success.

http://evonet.lri.fr/evoweb/resources/nutshell/


machines are working towards this.

Adaptability in machines and problem solving, if a computer is programmed to build a bridge, like a human it will. If a human has never seen a bridge it will not build it!

What do you think a virus is Gav?

A machine or living thing?

Do you think machines have to be made of metal?

Whirly, get over it. I understand everything you've posted but if the childish tactic of convincing yourself I haven't, works for you, then my all means continue it. Your arguments just aren't strong enough, well, first off they're not YOUR arguments. Second of all, they're just not strong enough to hold water. You are basing everything on what you believe will happen in the future and that's bs, because the future is conceptual for the most part.

Your whole argument is based around "Machines have already created music" and the fact is, they actually have not. Your inability to admit this not included, it's true.

Originally posted by soleran30
wow AC, after reading these pages I am not sure of your expectations............you are not sure of future results howver you say you think that certain things will occurr................please specify.

A fair question.

My point is that the future doesn't exist outside of being a concept, when it arrives it becomes the present. The reason I say that I believe things will happen is because time, incase you haven't noticed, passes somewhat regularly. So, death or the end of the world not withstanding, we will see more of time. In time, things will obviously develop. Eg: To say "Technology will advance" is true, regardless of the future being conceptual or not. Saying "I will get older" is true, because it's happening as we speak.

For Whirly to specifically say that an EXACT complex event will happen is ridiculous though, why? Because for machines to achieve what he believes they will achieve, many OTHER things must occur for it to get to that point and there is absolutely no way in which we are able to determine that those specific advances in technology will happen. I don't believe for one second that machines will ever be independent enough to have emotion, Whirly does and that's fine. He's basing it on something he is falsely believing about the machines of today though.

He believes that if they can create music on their own now, they'll do much more in the future. Obviously he's persistently sticking his fingers in his ears going "Lalalalalalala not listening" when the fact is raised that they haven't done that.

-AC

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Your talking about natural selection and adaptability in one post.

The inuits are a product of environmental evolutionary adaptation.

http://lslwww.epfl.ch/biowall/Articles/teuscher01_ipcat01.pdf

The authors are with the Logic Systems Laboratory, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne,
CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. E-mail:
{name.surname}@epfl.ch. Web: http://lslwww.epfl.ch. This work
was supported in part by the Swiss National Science Foundation under grant 21-54113.89, by the Leenaards
Foundation, Lausanne, Switzerland, and by the Villa Reuge, Ste-Croix, Switzerland.

Evolutionary computing works towads this with some success.

http://evonet.lri.fr/evoweb/resources/nutshell/


machines are working towards this.

Adaptability in machines and problem solving, if a computer is programmed to build a bridge, like a human it will. If a human has never seen a bridge it will not build it!

What do you think a virus is Gav?

A machine or living thing?

Do you think machines have to be made of metal?

I believe virus' can be organic and virtual, if that was your question. However a machine does not need to be made of metal or indeed to be able to carry out things on its own. A spinning wheel or loom are both machines are they not?

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
I don't think a Human is a machine because of our ability to change our purpose to any situation and think independently. Machines cannot do this.

Not yet...


...but I've done some work in the robotics field (for manufacturing) and I don't think it'll be far in the future when we'll see robots that can be given a general task only; then they use vision systems to evaluate their surroundings and create their own programme to complete the task in the most logical/time efficient way.

How doyou write a program for a computer to think? Actually think and learn and adapt to any situation you put it in.

Originally posted by mechmoggy
Not yet...


...but I've done some work in the robotics field (for manufacturing) and I don't think it'll be far in the future when we'll see robots that can be given a general task only; then they use vision systems to evaluate their surroundings and create their own programme to complete the task in the most logical/time efficient way.

You believe a man-made machine will, in time, have the ability to laugh and cry, feel sadness and all other human emotions? Not just interpret, create?

That's nigh impossible.

-AC

If, when all is said and done, there is no elan vital, which many feel animate a living thing, then in truth one day there will be machines indistinguishable from their biological analogues, even at the nanoscale.

However, if there is more to life than meets the eye and mind, if the material, phenomenal world is but a "crust" over some deeper, more rarified noumenon, then no matter how complex the machine, it will always be a mimic, a simulacrum of the genuine article (regardless of whether or not we human beings, with our limited perception, can tell the difference).

Unless, of course, spirit can inhabit man-made bodies!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You believe a man-made machine will, in time, have the ability to laugh and cry, feel sadness and all other human emotions? Not just interpret, create?

That's nigh impossible.

-AC

Not Nigh it is!

Never say never If you believe in Evolution inorganic and organic elements combined in a soup to create life and over 3.5 billion years that became life. In less than 50 computers are able to respond and react in ways beyond primitive organisms. Code is also able to replicate within a host (a computer) The evolutiion of more than a billion years in organics, in fifty for machines. Never say Never. This is not looking at things like nerve cells and organic computers which both already exist.

You are basing your whole argument on "If" and what you believe might happen in the future due to your "I don't care if it's impossible, never say never" rationale. The problem there is, you go around saying "If..." and "Never say never" but that's why you call people limited thinkers.

Because you are of the belief that anything might be possible, despite it being IMPOSSIBLE for what you claim coming to pass.

No amount of tricking or trying will get around the fact that man-made machines will never feel emotion or create emotion, they will never have that. The only counter you have is "Hasn't happened yet, so you can't say", when infact, that's precisely why I can say it and why you CAN'T say that things will happen. You don't know that, but I DO know that machines can't do those things today, and judging by this, nor will they ever.

-AC

I ask gain how do you program a machine/computer to think?

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
I ask gain how do you program a machine/computer to think?

Who's gain?

first you have to define thought

Typical coward move. Attempt to over-complicate the debate with needless sidetracking when the actual debate is out of your reach.

We don't need to define thought, that's not for this debate.

Your argument is that in time machines can become equal to humans or more, in the sense that they will be able to create exactly as we do and feel exactly as we do.

The fact is, you are wrong. Mimicry to the point that a human can't tell the difference is still mimicry.

-AC

Some people here are assuming the future and as such have no clue what is going to happen. I do believe there will be a time that "machines" will have many of the functions that humans have. To say otherwise is silly Whirly has used music for comparison simply because AC associates with it. There are many many many other AI that do much more then the music piece whirly represented................

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You believe a man-made machine will, in time, have the ability to laugh and cry, feel sadness and all other human emotions? Not just interpret, create?

That's nigh impossible.

-AC


Errr...I didn't say that it would.

Perhaps you should re-read my post.

Perhaps you should note the question mark.

Originally posted by soleran30
Some people here are assuming the future and as such have no clue what is going to happen. I do believe there will be a time that "machines" will have many of the functions that humans have. To say otherwise is silly Whirly has used music for comparison simply because AC associates with it. There are many many many other AI that do much more then the music piece whirly represented................

To say otherwise is silly? You honestly believe that at some point, man-made machines will be equal to us in terms of being able to perceive and endure emotions? Yes or no.

The mere fact that they are man-made and have to be made by man to exist, proves it wrong.

Whirly himself is the one saying that machines will end up equalling or surpassing human beings in that sense. He's not saying it might, he's saying it will based on current information, which he has got wrong anyway.

-AC

You asked that question based on my post.

"You believe a man-made machine will..."

I can't see how you got there from the contents of my message.

I didn't, I was asking you if that's what you believe. Just in an informal way.

I quite clearly meant "Do you..." Hence the question mark. If I believed you thought that I would have said you believed it, not asked if you believe it.

Either way, that's what it was. Me asking.

-AC

Hmmm, perhaps I misunderstood because you began it with, "You believe...", and not, "Do you believe...". The first sounds like you telling me what I mean, and the second sounds like a question.


And for the record: I don't believe Robots will ever "feel" emotions. I just wanted to point out that robots that can understand complex tasks, and even create their own program to complete said task aren't that far in the future.

Originally posted by mechmoggy
Hmmm, perhaps I misunderstood because you began it with, "You believe...", and not, "Do you believe...". The first sounds like you telling me what I mean, and the second sounds like a question.


And for the record: I don't believe Robots will ever "feel" emotions. I just wanted to point out that robots that can understand complex tasks, and even create their own program to complete said task aren't that far in the future.

I think artificial "life" will though and this is not robots! However it is machines!

It's artificial for a reason.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's artificial for a reason.

-AC

And this is where your views and mine diverge as you see life as mystical and I see it as Chemistry and Physics interacting to form Biology.

Complicated structures using distinctive parts wich are comparible even though some may use other substances than others are apperantly what we call machines.

The human body not being called a machine is only because of such complicated and non-comprehensible factors in it that we don't include it to the human defined category.
Perhaps we will set up a rule that structures working together as a whole with organics can not be included, it doesn't matter. The basic idea of a machine still stands and we can therefore imply it on everything with the specifications, either symbolically or technically.

But these terms are human made definitions and variable and mean nothing anyway.. So why am I thinking about a useless subject like this?
Hmm...

http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.html?flash=2

Very cool site. Especially check out the stuff on the singularity

Originally posted by Mindship
http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.html?flash=2

Very cool site. Especially check out the stuff on the singularity

Thing is many think it will happen sooner then vinge estimates, I think this might be the case!

I didn't know Michio Kaku was a singularity theorist, shit!!!

The woman was the first machine ever created.-religious and whatever

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You believe a man-made machine will, in time, have the ability to laugh and cry, feel sadness and all other human emotions? Not just interpret, create?

That's nigh impossible.

-AC Emotions are basically just complex chemical and electrical interactions. So why wouldn't it be possible?

Mitochondria are essentially machines. Ribosomes. Endoplasmic reticulum. Etc. Humans are basically machines made of smaller machines made of smaller machines.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Emotions are basically just complex chemical and electrical interactions. So why wouldn't it be possible?

Mitochondria are essentially machines. Ribosomes. Endoplasmic reticulum. Etc. Humans are basically machines made of smaller machines made of smaller machines.

That's already been discussed, the idea of humans as machines.

Do you believe that a machine, at some point will be able to think, feel and appreciate to a human level? Pick up a guitar and create a song? Be moved by it?

I don't.

-AC

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Emotions are basically just complex chemical and electrical interactions. So why wouldn't it be possible?

Because in order for that to be achieved in machines, it's not just a leap is it? It's not just going to happen. There would have to be many stages leading to it. Just "reactions" they may be, but they are reactions that are, in my opinion, out of the reach of man made machines. I, Robot for example. The robot named Sonny has all the apparant "emotions" but he lacks the ability to perceive and appreciate them because "he's" not human.

Moreover, Whirly was implying that "machines" will one day be equal. This is false seeing as they need humans to create them. They can be as advanced in interpretation as they want but it doesn't change the fact that there will always HAVE to be a human hand to start the ball rolling.

Humans don't need machines to create life or continue as a race. Machines don't create themselves.

-AC

If we're going to reference movies as if they actually mean anything, then Bicentennial Man had a emotion-capable robot and Alien Resurrection had a second generation android (played by a kleptomaniac).

To say that it's impossible to create feeling machines is silly. It entails the need for some esoteric factor unique to human perception beyond chemistry, physics and biology. To say that machines must always be made by humans is also foolishness.

It's human egotism to say that it's impossible to replicate such things as intelligence and emotion.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
To say that it's impossible to create feeling machines is silly. It entails the need for some esoteric factor unique to human perception beyond chemistry, physics and biology. To say that machines must always be made by humans is also foolishness.

It's human egotism to say that it's impossible to replicate such things as intelligence and emotion.

You highlighted the wrong word, the word you should have highlighted is "replicate", and second of all, you're not saying anything that others haven't said.

Replicate all you want, they exist because of humans. Replicating and mimicry ISN'T creation from scratch and appreciating it.

-AC

Before you said that what set humans apart from machines was that humans had emotions. Also that a machine is something that is built by humans.

Now you're saying that even if emotions are replicated in machines, it's not enough because they didn't create their own emotions themselves from scratch. And if a second generation machine is created, it still exists because of humans.

Humans can't exist without progenitor humans either.

Are you saying that machines have to invent all new unique machine emotions?

How many generations would robotics have to go through before you'd stop considering humans as their direct progenitors?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Before you said that what set humans apart from machines was that humans had emotions. Also that a machine is something that is built by humans.

In the common view when someone says "machine" you don't automatically think about humans. You think about synthetics and robots etc.

No, I never said machines were exclusively built by humans.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Now you're saying that even if emotions are replicated in machines, it's not enough because they didn't create their own emotions themselves from scratch. And if a second generation machine is created, it still exists because of humans.

Humans can't exist without progenitor humans either.

Are you saying that machines have to invent all new unique machine emotions?

How many generations would robotics have to go through before you'd stop considering humans as their direct progenitors?

Replicating isn't having the emotion, in this case. Mirrors replicate an image, but my reflection isn't a sentient being. The mirror is just mimicing everything infront of it. Looks the same, moves the same, but isn't the same.

My main point is that I will never consider machines (in the easy sense) to be humans equal until there is a race of them that exist on their own, maintain themselves and create themselves. They're not equal to us if they can't do all we can do. I don't believe this will happen though, because machines would need the technological advances given to them BY humans to do this, and I can't see that happening.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Perhaps you should note the question mark.



To say otherwise is silly? You honestly believe that at some point, man-made machines will be equal to us in terms of being able to perceive and endure emotions? Yes or no.

The mere fact that they are man-made and have to be made by man to exist, proves it wrong.

Whirly himself is the one saying that machines will end up equalling or surpassing human beings in that sense. He's not saying it might, he's saying it will based on current information, which he has got wrong anyway.

-AC


yup and something to think about is that all those emotions humans have MANY of them are learned. All emotions are "man-made" machines can "evolve" faster then humans so to think it out of the question that they become indepenant of humans shows a lack of forsight.

Originally posted by soleran30
yup and something to think about is that all those emotions humans have MANY of them are learned. All emotions are "man-made" machines can "evolve" faster then humans so to think it out of the question that they become indepenant of humans shows a lack of forsight.

Oh talk about being anal. They're not "man-made" as in constructed from materials created and/or manipulated by man in a factory.

You're overlooking the fact that as it stands (because the present is what we live in) machines don't have any means of appreciating things like we do.

They can't feel sadness or happiness etc. For them to achieve this, lots of other things must happen on the way to them reaching the stage. Moreover, I seriously doubt humans are ever going to jeopardise their role as the dominant species here. That said, as I said before, until machines are a self-sustaining independent race and show signs that they are able to be one of themselves and without human aid, then I'll consider it.

-AC

Well, I guess yu could say that humans are rather complicated machines. that is if you don't use a definition that includes "man-made".

Yeah well, I did say that.

I think it's all descended into longshot speculation and hyperbole now really. I'll believe it when I see it, in short.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah well, I did say that.

I think it's all descended into longshot speculation and hyperbole now really. I'll believe it when I see it, in short.

-AC

AC saying can't is equally as short sighted!

Emotions are pobably only Memes anyway as I stated 6 pages back.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
AC saying can't is equally as short sighted!

Yes, you think I'm short sighted, I get it. Perhaps you might say it 15 more times, I'm not sure I got it the other 20 times.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, you think I'm short sighted, I get it. Perhaps you might say it 15 more times, I'm not sure I got it the other 20 times.

-AC

Just checking actually I think the difference in our positions is due to your belief in life being more special than just simple chemistry and physics combining to form biology. - But I said that earlier also. I am bored with this thread it's going nowhere. Out of interest as a guy into spiritulism with a small "s" I know your into Gaea theories etc, don't you just see the singularity as an natural extension of this? I do.

Into Gaia theories? No I'm not.

Being spiritual doesn't mean there are certain theories and views you conform to. My beliefs are spiritual in nature but that doesn't mean I restrict myself. Either way, this isn't the thread for it.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Into Gaia theories? No I'm not.

Being spiritual doesn't mean there are certain theories and views you conform to. My beliefs are spiritual in nature but that doesn't mean I restrict myself. Either way, this isn't the thread for it.

-AC

I thought you were from a previous post, where you discussed collective conciosness, my mistake. Anyway thats me out of this thread everything has been said. People who are Science majors or Science Graduates seem to agree with me. The more spiritual based people seem to agree with you. I would say we have reached an impasse. I respect your opinion anyway and you may prove to be right in the long term, as may I. My final point is only time will tell. A cliche but in the end a final truth.

SWS