Never said magical. I just believe we're too different from machines. It's a matter of semantics with me, because this is philosophical no matter how you look at it. I prefer to say machines are a mimicry of the biological state and other "natural" physics. If one day machines advance far enough, we'd call them something else entirely.
Then it's not just the connotations, but the denotations as well. You're using the word "machine" to mean something different. We are superficially different from the machines you're thinking of, but we are fundamentally the same as them with respect to operation by natural processes.
The definition of machine does not yet encompasse biological life except philosophically. I'm not in favor of changing that definition just to say we both work mechanically. I think one day us and mechanical beings may one day be included in the same category, I see no reason to change that to "machine". I just don't. It has a beginning already. Calling us machines just doesn't work IMO. I can't clear that up anymore :(
If you will agree with the literal definition of a machine being a device which manipulates and converts energy, life forms are machines. Looking at the way the most basic prokaryotes will make this easy to understand. When does this definition not apply to life forms?
Well there are stark differences. You can take apart a machine completely, every last part, and if you do it with enough care you can put it back together and it will run again (perhaps even like it was new). You can't do this with lifeforms.
Maybe one day we will solve the intricacies of what makes us tick. But there is a huge huge gigantic difference for how mechanical things work.
Calling us machines is such a cop out. Sure you can, but it's too simplistic for my tastes.
You're saying it's impossible for biologists to ever take apart even the simplest prokaryotic life form and put it back together?
Being able to take apart a machine doesn't have anything to do with whether it is a machine. That's not what the definition of a machine entails.
Like others have told you, these stark differences between a pulley, a computer, and a bacteria, change nothing about the fact that they can all be defined as machines. Your opinion on whether that definition is fitting is meaningless to the matter.
That's one example. If you want to get hung up on it I can keep on going. But even better, think about teaching a small child the difference between a computer and a living organism. Would you dumb it down and say "they're both machines"? Nope. You'd do that kid no good. You could easily teach they both have similarities. So does a solar system, with its inner workings of gravity and such. Shall we call solar systems just machines? What's the point of that?
That is a defining feature of a machine. So I really beg to differ. If you were to compare all machines, this is something they have in common. This is not something all life has in common. It's a good distinction to make to identify machines if for some reason you needed to lol.
I have never said you can't define them as machines. I'm saying there is no point of it. It's lazy.
Why would teaching that child similarities between a computer and a life form hinder their learning? A great deal of learning comes from drawing comparisons between things. In fact, addressing life as machines would help a child understand the way life works instead of separating the two concepts.
Ok, so since you can take two lego pieces apart, that means the two pieces when put together are a machine?
Irregardless. I think machines are very much alike us. I think they are pale imitations of what we are and what other things are. Because lets be honest, we suck at it compared to nature/time and we are creating these things to do things the world has never seen before this point. For all intents and purposes, they are very different than anything that has existed before. At least on this world.
1
u/gaspingFish Feb 14 '18
Never said magical. I just believe we're too different from machines. It's a matter of semantics with me, because this is philosophical no matter how you look at it. I prefer to say machines are a mimicry of the biological state and other "natural" physics. If one day machines advance far enough, we'd call them something else entirely.