3 ms·
Your position: science can imitate (and maybe even surpass) Nature. My position: science will never ever be able to even come close to Nature (a simple example
by polos 17y ago
Your position: science can imitate (and maybe even surpass) Nature.
My position: science will never ever be able to even come close to Nature (a simple example? Look at the most simple form of live possible: current (so heavily applauded) science has no idea, whatsoever, what even the principle of every live-form is consisting of -- it's called the "soul", BTW).
WWW -- Who Will Win?
;)
- Scriptor 17y agoWhat counts as a living form? The definition of life is based entirely on scientific observations of what we currently perceive. Does a virus have a soul? Why or why not? (If you say it doesn't because it's not alive, what are your criteria for life? Science's?) Remember that it is only a belief of yours' that the soul is at the heart of life. What if an entirely inorganic machine was one day created that could: 1. Maintain its internal state (homeostasis). 2. Harvest and utilize energy (metabolism). Very recently robots have been created that can digest organic matter and convert it to usable energy. 3. Manufacture add-ons for itself (growth). 4. Sense its environment and change behavior accordingly (response to stimuli). 5. Manufacture smaller versions of itself by harvesting and creating the needed materials and assembling them (reproduction). 6. Contain a code that can be modified and that governs its behavior, so that imperfect code can be weeded out or changed to improve (adaptation). And this machine would be completely autonomous. It wouldn't even need much intelligence since all it essentially does is maintain itself, respond in pre-programmed ways to the environment, and create more of itself. How is this different from life other than it doesn't use life's materials? Would it have a soul?
- polos 17y agoFiction again? Are your dreams more real than reality? You're not doing a real favor to science. Science always has to be concrete and repeatable (as you well know). You already make my head ache, really badly... Please remember: science can reach only that far, it has real limits, which nobody is able to extend, and which we all need to respect. P.S: The principle of any life in Nature is called it's soul, which is invisible, and which only lasts as long as the life persists. So, every plant has its (simple) soul, and science until now has no clue whatsoever what even the simplest form of these souls are consisting of -- as they are, in fact, outside of our physical universe...
- Scriptor 17y agoHow do any of those break any limits of science? Please, I'd love to know. Maybe you think I'm talking about Matrix-style robots and have decided that I'm just being silly. I'm not. A simple bot that has the capability of manufacturing more of itself won't be that hard, consider that most modern factories are highly automated. Oh, as for your soul principle, do you have any concrete evidence, any proof? Are you actually saying that science has limits because it doesn't conform to your belief system?
- polos 17y agoSo, you say that it would (in theory) be possible, that the human brain could create something more intelligent than itself? Come on, that's ridiculous. (Like the evolution theory, which is completely ridiculous, as it says that a less intelligent being can "auto-evovle" into something more intelligent...) At this point, any discussion is pointless, as we already completely substitute reality with fiction.