4 ms·
> Aren't humans themselves essentially human made? No, not in the sense in which the word "made" is being used here. > Maybe a better definition would be non-
by caconym_ 1y ago
> Aren't humans themselves essentially human made?
No, not in the sense in which the word "made" is being used here.
> Maybe a better definition would be non-human (or inorganic if we want to include intelligence like e.g. dolphins)?
Neither of these work. Calling intelligence in animals "artificial" is absurd, and "inorganic" arbitrarily excludes "head cheese" style approaches to building artificial intelligence.
"Artificial" strongly implies mimicry of something that occurs naturally, and is derived from the same root as "artifice", which can be defined as "to construct by means of skill or specialized art". This obviously excludes the natural biological act of reproduction that produces a newborn human brain (and support equipment) primed to learn and grow; reportedly, sometimes people don't even know they're pregnant until they go into labor (and figure out that's what's happening).
- kridsdale3 1y agoIf I asked my wife if she made our son, she would say yes. It is literally called "labour". Then there is "emotional labour" that lasts for 10 years to do the post-training.
- caconym_ 1y agoI drove my car to work today, and while I was at work I drove a meeting. Does this mean my car is a meeting? My meeting was a car? It turns out that some (many, in fact) words mean different things in different contexts. My comment makes an explicit argument concerning the connotations and nuances of the word "made" used in this context, and you have not responded to that argument.
- dcow 1y agoJudging by this response, I’m guessing you don’t have children of your own. Otherwise you might understand the context.
- caconym_ 1y agoYour guess is wrong! Maybe you should have written a substantive response to my comments instead of trying and failing to dunk on me. Maybe you don't understand as much as you think you do.