I also want to suggest that we can consider the lifeless mechanical computer
brain
implant in some ways as functionally the same as its organic counterpart. By
the same
token, our organic brain implant has some characteristics of a machine including
the
fact that it is not self replicating.
So perhaps we ought not to try so hard to classify all macro physical objects as
"either" machines "or" organisms. These divisions are questions of logical
typing. They
are also relative to both context and level.
The point is that sometimes it is more appropriate to use "and" logic with
logical
typing. In other words, it may be more descriptive to say that machines and
organisms
both differ and are the same. Much depends upon the context and the level we
are
focusing on as we attempt to articulate our point of view. Better understanding
often
comes from combining many points of view.
NKM
Norman K. McPhail wrote:
> Mario Vaneechoutte wrote:
>
> > Only, machines are really dead end, since none of their constituent
> > parts has autonomously duplicating capacities, which cannot be said of
horses
> > and
> > us, carrying germ cells and being constructed as the result of clonal
> > duplication of
> > one of our mother's germ cells (our father only gave some DNA).
> >
> > So, I am in favor of an ontogenetic explanation of the differences between
> > machines
> > and living organisms. My intuition tells me that epistemiological
considerations
> > are
> > merely nit-picking. I hope some philosophers can back me up in this.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Mario
> >
>
> Mario:
>
> I sometimes accept it when others put me in the class of all philosophers. I
guess
> this is because I can identify with Socrates who claimed not to know anything
and
> some people say he was a philosopher. So I will offer a thought or two on
your
> hypothesis about the differences between living organisms and machines.
>
> Here is a thought experiment that may help to get to the heart of this
question:
> Suppose this was the year 2099 and we were scientists working on an experiment
with
> lab rats and computers. The computer hardware is now so small and efficient
that we
> can replace our lab rats' brains with tiny computers that are programmed to
work
> just like rat brains. Nano surgery has also progresses to the point where we
can
> wire up our computers and install them in the rats' skulls before they are
born.
>
> Our experimenters are a new breed of artificial intelligence scientists who
are
> working on computers that can be tailored to replace any part or all of an
animals
> brain. This is one of the last frontiers of organ replacement technology.
There
> are two schools of thought that has led to a race to see which can develop
brain
> implants to replace components of human brain tissue lost as a result of
stroke,
> degenerative disease or accident.
>
> The other brain replacement technologists are growing brain tissue from the
victim's
> own brain cells in the lab and them surgically implanting them to restore lost
> tissue and function. In this race, the computer guys seem to have an
advantage
> because they can pre program their implants so that the recipients minds are
up and
> running almost immediately. On the other hand, the biogen specialists have no
way
> to pre program their implants so the patients must endure lengthy re-learning
> training which can take years.
>
> Back to our AI lab rats, after several years of work they succeed in
implanting
> computers in place of brains, and the rats grow and progress in ways that are
> indistinguishable from lab rats with organic brains. So functionally we can
say
> that these individual AI rats are from all outward appearances and tests
nearly
> identical to the pure biological rats. The only difference is that when they
mate
> and replicate, their offspring have normal rat brains not the computer
variety.
>
> The competing biogen team is having equal success with its own lab rats. They
too
> have implanted organic brain tissue in unborn rats with complete success.
Except
> for the scars, it is virtually impossible to tell the rats with brain implants
from
> those with their own brains. Of course, when they autopsy them and test the
cell
> structure and DNA of the artificial brain implants, the brain tissue can be
clearly
> distinguished from normal brain tissue. Note that these rats also exhibit the
same
> replilcative characteristic that the computer brain rats show: namely, their
> offspring have normal rat brains that show no trace of the organic brain
implants.
>
> It's easy to see that the rats with both the mechanical and organic brain
implants
> differ from the rats that don't have brain implants. The implant rats can't
pass on
> their implanted brains to the next generation of rats. One way to look at
this is
> that if all rats in the world had brain implants of one kind or another, the
next
> generation of rats would show no noticeable trace of the implants. But if all
the
> rats in the world would have died without implants, the evolutionary impact of
the
> implants would be limited to the impact that the implants had on the
generation that
> needed them to survive.
>
> In self-organizing circles or loops, causation is not the same as simple
linear
> causation. Organic self-organizing loops seem to differ from non organic
> self-organizing loops in the way they pass on information as well as the kinds
of
> information they pass on through these loops. Perhaps Mario, you can help me
out
> here in describing how organic self-organizing loops pass on information.
Then
> hopefully someone else can give us a description of how mechanical or non
organic
> self-organizing loops transmit information from one stage to another.
>
> With these two descriptions, we can then compare them and see if we can come
up with
> a better way to tell mechanical non organic systems from organic systems.
>
> Norm