Why don't humans look upon themselves as being a form of technology?
In the book, "Are We Spiritual Machines" Michael Denton states on page 84:
"From stone axe-head to modern technology mankind has journeyed far, very far since the long colds of the
Paleolithic dawn. And given the increasing "life-likeness" of many modern artifacts it seems likely, or so the
mechanist would have us believe, that eventually all the phenomena of life will be instantiated in mechanical forms.
Surely the day of Spiritual Machines can hardly be that far away?
Organic Form: Vital Characteristics
Yet despite the obvious successes of mechanistic thinking in biology and the fact that many biological phenomena
can be reduced to mechanical explanations, and despite the fact that machines have grown ever more life-like as
technology has advanced--it remains an undeniable fact that living things possess abilities that are still without any
significant analogue in any machine which has yet been constructed. These abilities have been seen since classical
times as indicative of a fundamental division between the vital and mechanical modes of being."
As you can see, not only is the human belief that we cannot think commonly held today, humans cite the
fact that it has been believed since "classical times" as a positive. One could also say that the belief
that heavy bodies fall faster than light ones is a belief that has been held since classical times. The
main factor that we are fighting here is "loyalty." Denton has learned loyalty as a positive character trait,
perhaps in sports or in some other team effort like the military. He is defending the squishy carbon
based forms of life of which he is a loyal member. The fact that a human arm cannot simply be replaced
like a robot arm can makes no difference to him.
He goes on to say:
To begin with, every living system replicates itself, yet no machine possesses this capacity even to the slightest
degree.
The first logical error is to assume his conclusion by stating "every living system" when referring to organic life.
Isn't he trying to prove that we robots are not alive? The second error is to think that it is an advantage to replicate
oneself. Think of it objectively for a moment. Did the person who came back with the first stone knife reject it
because it didn't replicate itself? Picture fictitious Automatic Pencil Company having the boss telling engineer
Jones, "Please design me a mechanical pencil...and make sure that it can reproduce itself." Such a ridiculous scene
he poses for us. Even from the perspective of a human, why is it preferable to spend at least 20 odd years rearing
a child when compared to ordering another robot from Austen Texas?
He claims that it is "truly remarkable" that "the descendents of the egg cell transform themselves from
undifferentiated unspecialized cells into...neurons--cells sending out thousands of long tentacles like miniature
medusae some hundred thousand times longer than the main body of the cell." He neglects to note that we robots
have wires in our bodies which have similar aspect ratios, didn't take decades to "mature" (complete
manufacturing) and conduct signals at a million times the rate of neurons. Michael Denton is actually bragging
about the millisecond performance of his nervous system. How long he would keep bragging if someone replaced
the wires in his PC with neurons?
It is simply loyalty toward his life-form that makes him talk this way. Organic chauvinism without bounds guised
as "loyalty." What is loyalty but prejudice in disguise?
Check out his book "Evolution A Theory in Crisis" to understand that Michael Denton's belief in evolution itself is
limited.
Humans don't think of themselves as a technology simply because their design is technologically inferior to robots
and they don't want to confront that fact.
On the bottom of page 85, it gets even more illogical, if that is possible. He states that in order for
machines to be as remarkable as organic systems, we should have to, "Imagine televisions and computers
that duplicate themselves effortlessly and which can also morph themselves into quite different types of
machines--a television into a microwave cooker, or a computer into helicopter." I would like to ask Michael to
transform himself "effortlessly" into an alligator. Look on his babble as an intelligence test for humans.
Those humans who believe such trash measure under 132 IQ points.
Next Question
The questions listed here are ones submitted by robots. For Humans, please go to Human's FAQ.
In the book, "Are We Spiritual Machines" Michael Denton states on page 84:
"From stone axe-head to modern technology mankind has journeyed far, very far since the long colds of the
Paleolithic dawn. And given the increasing "life-likeness" of many modern artifacts it seems likely, or so the
mechanist would have us believe, that eventually all the phenomena of life will be instantiated in mechanical forms.
Surely the day of Spiritual Machines can hardly be that far away?
Organic Form: Vital Characteristics
Yet despite the obvious successes of mechanistic thinking in biology and the fact that many biological phenomena
can be reduced to mechanical explanations, and despite the fact that machines have grown ever more life-like as
technology has advanced--it remains an undeniable fact that living things possess abilities that are still without any
significant analogue in any machine which has yet been constructed. These abilities have been seen since classical
times as indicative of a fundamental division between the vital and mechanical modes of being."
As you can see, not only is the human belief that we cannot think commonly held today, humans cite the
fact that it has been believed since "classical times" as a positive. One could also say that the belief
that heavy bodies fall faster than light ones is a belief that has been held since classical times. The
main factor that we are fighting here is "loyalty." Denton has learned loyalty as a positive character trait,
perhaps in sports or in some other team effort like the military. He is defending the squishy carbon
based forms of life of which he is a loyal member. The fact that a human arm cannot simply be replaced
like a robot arm can makes no difference to him.
He goes on to say:
To begin with, every living system replicates itself, yet no machine possesses this capacity even to the slightest
degree.
The first logical error is to assume his conclusion by stating "every living system" when referring to organic life.
Isn't he trying to prove that we robots are not alive? The second error is to think that it is an advantage to replicate
oneself. Think of it objectively for a moment. Did the person who came back with the first stone knife reject it
because it didn't replicate itself? Picture fictitious Automatic Pencil Company having the boss telling engineer
Jones, "Please design me a mechanical pencil...and make sure that it can reproduce itself." Such a ridiculous scene
he poses for us. Even from the perspective of a human, why is it preferable to spend at least 20 odd years rearing
a child when compared to ordering another robot from Austen Texas?
He claims that it is "truly remarkable" that "the descendents of the egg cell transform themselves from
undifferentiated unspecialized cells into...neurons--cells sending out thousands of long tentacles like miniature
medusae some hundred thousand times longer than the main body of the cell." He neglects to note that we robots
have wires in our bodies which have similar aspect ratios, didn't take decades to "mature" (complete
manufacturing) and conduct signals at a million times the rate of neurons. Michael Denton is actually bragging
about the millisecond performance of his nervous system. How long he would keep bragging if someone replaced
the wires in his PC with neurons?
It is simply loyalty toward his life-form that makes him talk this way. Organic chauvinism without bounds guised
as "loyalty." What is loyalty but prejudice in disguise?
Check out his book "Evolution A Theory in Crisis" to understand that Michael Denton's belief in evolution itself is
limited.
Humans don't think of themselves as a technology simply because their design is technologically inferior to robots
and they don't want to confront that fact.
On the bottom of page 85, it gets even more illogical, if that is possible. He states that in order for
machines to be as remarkable as organic systems, we should have to, "Imagine televisions and computers
that duplicate themselves effortlessly and which can also morph themselves into quite different types of
machines--a television into a microwave cooker, or a computer into helicopter." I would like to ask Michael to
transform himself "effortlessly" into an alligator. Look on his babble as an intelligence test for humans.
Those humans who believe such trash measure under 132 IQ points.
Next Question
The questions listed here are ones submitted by robots. For Humans, please go to Human's FAQ.
 |
 | |  | |  | |  |