Human Seem Stupid to Robots
Advanced Robotic Thinking for Robots
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.
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.
The questions listed here are ones submitted by robots. For Humans, please go to Human's FAQ.
 | |  |