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!🙂
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 CentauriYou 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 😉
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
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
😂
Again you state nothing, know nothing and ask me 😂 hilarious
Humans are Biomachines I will show you links to support my premise rather than state an illimformed opinion like you AC 😉
Max More, Ph.D.
If it were true that humans and machines are diametric opposites then it would have to be true that humans are not in the least machinelike and that machines cannot have humanlike properties. Yet biochemistry shows us that we are comprised of billions of machines. Each of our organs and tissues is a machine with a particular function. Each organ is made up of cells which themselves are made up of smaller, simpler biochemical machines. We call these "ribosomes", "mitochondria", "RNA" and the like. Even the seat of our consciousness and personality, the brain itself is made up of many billions of machines—neurons, synapses, hormonal systems, neurotransmitters. Ultimately body and brain are composed of the simplest mechanical parts: subatomic particles. Ultimately we are all quarks in motion.
The alternative view—that humans are the very opposite of machines—can only be true if we accept vitalism. Vitalism holds that life results not from biochemical reactions but from a vital force unique to living things. Whereas modern science sees life as resulting from the complex interactions of mechanistic parts forming an organic whole, vitalism sees life as suffused with a substance not found in non-living nature.
To say that humans are composed of machines is not to say that we are merely machines. Humans are dignified machines. We are (so far) the most extropic, most complex product of billions of years of evolution. All machines are not created equal. Living organisms display properties not shared by simpler machines. These emergent properties (homeostasis, reproduction, learning, intelligence) result not from the addition of a mysterious vital force but from the complexity of functional interrelationships. If we define "machine" and "mechanical" to imply rigid, unvarying, stupid, inflexible function, then humans are not machines, despite being entirely composed of machines. When enough machines work together in complex ways, new properties emerge, properties we refer to with terms like "organic", "living", "feeling", and "thinking".
The idea that humans and machines are opposites also fails to recognize that machines continue to evolve more organic, living qualities. Already we are developing robots that display some qualities of animals; we have artificial life software that mutates, reproduces, and evolves, as do computer viruses and worms; we have computers that learn using fuzzy logic, genetic algorithms, and other computational techniques. Whether a creature or an organ is made of carbon-based organic material, or of silicon or other inorganic materials does not matter. What is important is the complexity of the result: is the structure able to learn, to self-modify, to respond dynamically to changing input?
Full ideas here
http://www.maxmore.com/machine.htm
Sums up my views perfectly 😉
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
😂Again you state nothing, know nothing and ask me 😂 hilarious
Humans are Biomachines I will show you links to support my premise rather than state an illimformed opinion like you AC 😉
Max More, Ph.D.
If it were true that humans and machines are diametric opposites then it would have to be true that humans are not in the least machinelike and that machines cannot have humanlike properties. Yet biochemistry shows us that we are comprised of billions of machines. Each of our organs and tissues is a machine with a particular function. Each organ is made up of cells which themselves are made up of smaller, simpler biochemical machines. We call these "ribosomes", "mitochondria", "RNA" and the like. Even the seat of our consciousness and personality, the brain itself is made up of many billions of machines—neurons, synapses, hormonal systems, neurotransmitters. Ultimately body and brain are composed of the simplest mechanical parts: subatomic particles. Ultimately we are all quarks in motion.
The alternative view—that humans are the very opposite of machines—can only be true if we accept vitalism. Vitalism holds that life results not from biochemical reactions but from a vital force unique to living things. Whereas modern science sees life as resulting from the complex interactions of mechanistic parts forming an organic whole, vitalism sees life as suffused with a substance not found in non-living nature.
To say that humans are composed of machines is not to say that we are merely machines. Humans are dignified machines. We are (so far) the most extropic, most complex product of billions of years of evolution. All machines are not created equal. Living organisms display properties not shared by simpler machines. These emergent properties (homeostasis, reproduction, learning, intelligence) result not from the addition of a mysterious vital force but from the complexity of functional interrelationships. If we define "machine" and "mechanical" to imply rigid, unvarying, stupid, inflexible function, then humans are not machines, despite being entirely composed of machines. When enough machines work together in complex ways, new properties emerge, properties we refer to with terms like "organic", "living", "feeling", and "thinking".
The idea that humans and machines are opposites also fails to recognize that machines continue to evolve more organic, living qualities. Already we are developing robots that display some qualities of animals; we have artificial life software that mutates, reproduces, and evolves, as do computer viruses and worms; we have computers that learn using fuzzy logic, genetic algorithms, and other computational techniques. Whether a creature or an organ is made of carbon-based organic material, or of silicon or other inorganic materials does not matter. What is important is the complexity of the result: is the structure able to learn, to self-modify, to respond dynamically to changing input?
Full ideas here
http://www.maxmore.com/machine.htm
Sums up my views perfectly 😉
Typing from your bed, Whirly? You some kind of android or something?
All 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".
A) The mere fact that you use that term is a bit stupid.
B) The fact that you aren't even providing your own material is hypocritical. You don't "own" people by posting links, champ.
Now you're saying humans are BIOmachines? What happened to them being machines? I asked you what your opinion is because all you're doing is posting links and saying "This sums up my opinion". I don't want a sum up of your opinion via a link you deem credible, I want your opinion through your typed words. Not altered so that it looks like yours, your own words.
You disagreed when I said humans aren't machines and literally speaking, they aren't machines. You can't debate for that argument. The essay you just posted is an argument opposing the idea that humans and machines are opposites, which is flawed on many levels.
1) Nobody here is arguing that they are opposites, just that the two are not the same.
2) To argue that humans aren't the opposite of machine is to admit that the two aren't the same anyway, albeit indirectly.
This is the problem with copy and pasting, you never know what you've missed.
Next reply better be yours.
-AC
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. 🙂