|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... - 11/3/2009 5:17:45 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 2309
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
I'm drawing a delineation between the creator or process that originally conceived of a life form (where I am indeed arguing that it is largely interchangeable) and the organism's reproductive system. What is largely interchangeable? Forgive me, huangshan, but I'm getting more confused by each post. How can an intelligent designer/creator be anywhere near "interchangeable" with random, unguided, naturalistic processes? How can you delineate an organism's reproductive system from the initiation of life in future organisms. Has anyone ever produced life apart from pre-existing reproductive mechanisms? Except, of course, GOD!
In the first post of this thread, I said, "If scientists create self-replicating machines, have they created life?" This is how it is interchangeable: If <some person or persons> create self-replicating machines, have they created life?
If I build a machine that reproduces itself, I am not the reproductive system of the machine, I am the one who built that machine. It has its own reproductive system.
Let's use God, for example: God creates man. Man's reproductive system is independent from that first act of creation, is it not?
Now, again, back to the original point: If scientists create self-replicating machines, have they created life? Why or why not?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... - 11/3/2009 5:24:17 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4627
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Let's use God, for example: God creates man. Man's reproductive system is independent from that first act of creation, is it not? Nope! Psalm 139:13 - "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb."
quote:
Why or why not? I told you - you didn't like my answer...
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... - 11/3/2009 5:47:34 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 2309
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Let's use God, for example: God creates man. Man's reproductive system is independent from that first act of creation, is it not? Nope! Psalm 139:13 - "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb."
I would interpret that as referring to the soul, given the "innermost being".
That said, under any interpretation it's still referring to a separate act from the original creation of man, and it's still a passage that's limited to man, and not to, say, dogs or robots.
quote:
quote:
Why or why not? I told you - you didn't like my answer...
And I gave you my rationale for discarding it. Would you like to add anything?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... - 11/3/2009 10:09:05 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4627
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I would interpret that as referring to the soul, given the "innermost being". Indeed, and only soulish animals are considered to be "alive" in ancient Hebrew thought. Now I think you're getting somewhere, huangshan.
quote:
That said, under any interpretation it's still referring to a separate act from the original creation of man, and it's still a passage that's limited to man, and not to, say, dogs or robots. Says who? Dogs don't write Psalms but that doesn't mean they don't have souls!
quote:
And I gave you my rationale for discarding it. Would you like to add anything? Nope! Your "rationale for discarding" Scripture impresses me not one whit...
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... - 11/3/2009 11:12:08 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 2309
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
That said, under any interpretation it's still referring to a separate act from the original creation of man, and it's still a passage that's limited to man, and not to, say, dogs or robots. Says who? Dogs don't write Psalms but that doesn't mean they don't have souls!
I wasn't aware that dogs had souls. What's the argument for that one? And does the argument preclude robots from having souls?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... - 11/4/2009 7:20:41 AM
|
|
|
leftwing
Posts: 213
Joined: 5/25/2009
Status: offline
|
There is some 'common knowledge' out there that is way, way wrong. Computers do not design.
Engineers and designers use computers to design. i.e. you'll hear someone say 'designed by computer'.
We've come a long way with computer technology but it'll be a very long time before anything is designed by a computer, let alone designed and built.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... - 11/4/2009 8:32:43 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4627
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
What's the argument for that one? Start a new thread and we'll discuss it. BTW, it's not an S&O topic... 
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... - 11/4/2009 9:03:39 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 3040
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: huangshan
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
That said, under any interpretation it's still referring to a separate act from the original creation of man, and it's still a passage that's limited to man, and not to, say, dogs or robots. Says who? Dogs don't write Psalms but that doesn't mean they don't have souls!
I wasn't aware that dogs had souls.
Nor was I. 
This would be an interesting discussion if, for a moment, people could put aside their need to hammer home an agenda and just think a little more abstractly. I don't think it'd be very fruitful, since it ultimately comes down to defining "life," but it'd be interesting.
quote:
There is some 'common knowledge' out there that is way, way wrong. Computers do not design.
Engineers and designers use computers to design. i.e. you'll hear someone say 'designed by computer'.
We've come a long way with computer technology but it'll be a very long time before anything is designed by a computer, let alone designed and built.
Eh... Things designed by genetic algorithms are more-or-less designed by computers. As we get better at defining and simulating "intelligence" or the building blocks to allow a computer to develop its own "intelligence," then computers can become more and more autonomous, even to the point of designing and building items.
-Dan.
< Message edited by iluvatar -- 11/4/2009 9:22:57 AM >
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... - 11/4/2009 9:11:44 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4627
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I don't think it'd be very fruitful, since it ultimately comes down to defining "life," but it'd be interesting. Thank you, Dan, I think you're finally getting my point!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... - 11/4/2009 11:09:46 AM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 269
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
If I build a machine that reproduces itself, I am not the reproductive system of the machine, I am the one who built that machine. It has its own reproductive system.
This quote is the core accept/reject criteria you are using for ALL of the arguments we've been posting here, isn't it? And it reflects your prejudice on how YOU think "life" should be, or even is. How can that assumption be valid? Such a case has NEVER existed in all creation: the creature having life independent of its creator.
Its not that you want this mechanical "life" to be independent of another lifeform (man) in the ecosystem, you're demanding that this "life" be independent of man as its CREATOR. You didn't come out and say this at first, but this is the initial premise of your whole conjecture, isn't it?
If this is the implied premise of your argument, huangshan, I'm afraid I have to simply reject that premise before we even get to your stated conjecture. To me, its like hearing the conjecture "If sometimes 2+2=5, is arithmetic a relative, rather than absolute, truth?" If the premise is held to be FALSE, there is no point in debating the conjecture.
No existing life has ever reproduced without the direct intervention of God, and no man-made machine will ever "reproduce" without the direct intervention of man.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... - 11/4/2009 7:59:56 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 2309
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
quote:
If I build a machine that reproduces itself, I am not the reproductive system of the machine, I am the one who built that machine. It has its own reproductive system.
This quote is the core accept/reject criteria you are using for ALL of the arguments we've been posting here, isn't it? And it reflects your prejudice on how YOU think "life" should be, or even is. How can that assumption be valid? Such a case has NEVER existed in all creation: the creature having life independent of its creator.
I'm afraid I don't understand your distress. If I build a machine capable of reproducing itself, am I its reproductive system, or am I not? It seems like a simple definitional problem. Even if you suppose that such a case has never existed (and I think I recall seeing a Youtube clip a while back that would indicate otherwise, not that it matters), it's still possible to imagine the simple scenario.
This seems like a problem of you wanting to expand the definition of "reproduction" to include initial creation. I don't see how that's appropriate at all. An individual machine need not have any relationship but history with its creator. It seems like suggesting that the creator is the process itself. A car manufacturer makes cars. It is not the combustion process within its cars, it merely designs and builds what is necessary for that process to occur.
quote:
Its not that you want this mechanical "life" to be independent of another lifeform (man) in the ecosystem, you're demanding that this "life" be independent of man as its CREATOR. You didn't come out and say this at first, but this is the initial premise of your whole conjecture, isn't it?
...
No existing life has ever reproduced without the direct intervention of God, and no man-made machine will ever "reproduce" without the direct intervention of man.
You seem to be trying to pin some sort of agenda on me. That's weird. I introduced a proposition, asked whether people agreed or disagreed and why. When people made disagreements I noted my objections to said disagreements.
Your other comment though... Well, it depends on the attributes you ascribe to God, I think. It seems like operating under the assumption that God is omnipotent and omnipresent then yes, God is necessarily there every step of the way. I don't object to that. But then you say that "no man-made machine will ever "reproduce" without the direct intervention of man", and I have to ask, what do you base this claim on? It strikes me that it may be difficult and expensive to build, but it's hardly beyond the capacity of human engineering to create such a machine. We're already fully capable of creating machines that are independent of humans in many ways, it doesn't seem like any kind of stretch of physics to add a factory/construction/replication component to the mix of features that already can exist on robots.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
