This site is to host your ideas about Philosophy - about doing philosophy as opposed to studying it. To be a philosopher (which is what we are aiming for)you need to think and here you can share your thoughts, get feedback and , hopefully, inspire discussions.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Machines and Human Beings
1) Can a machine be classified as a human being 2) Can a human being be classified as a machine?
Louise said... 1. A human could be considered to be a machine by definition. Humans contain a range of different systems working together to function and this is essentially what a machine does. On the other hand, I don't think a human could ever truly be a machine as long as they still have a functioning human brain. Even if you had your arm amputated and you had a bionic arm or something to replace it, you would still be a human even if that part of you was a machine.
2. I don't think a machine could become human. Even if a machine has many human characteristics there would still be something to distinguish them from an actual human being. I don't really think that it is possible for a machine to truly develop the skills to reason philosophically or to feel emotion. It could be possible that you could hook up a human brain to a machine which would mean that the machine was capable of all the things that a human is capable of. Even so, it is hard to consider a machine with a human brain to be human... the machine would have to have a human form as well. September 23, 2008 1:50 AM
nathan said... Can a machine be classified as a human being? Vice versa I believe that machines can be classed as a human being because we haven’t established what a “real” human being is, in addition what exactly is a machine? Is a clone a machine? If a sheep is cloned is the clone a sheep? And if it is how do you justify this after it has been genetically modified to the DNA of the original sheep? Also for a religious person couldn’t we say human beings are god’s machines? We have a creator and to some extent told how to live our “lives” by this creator. A human being can also be classed as machine, just because we’ve made up an interpretation of a machine with electronically parts doesn’t mean we are our “own type” of machine. September 23, 2008 2:33 AM
Natalia said... On one hand, a human can be classified as a machine in the sense that it has different 'parts' (heart, lungs brain etc.) working together to carry out certain functions. However, humans have the ability to think for themselves and they are able to express a range of different emotions. They can reason and question what they have learned (what they have been 'programed' in a sense) and are able to act out of free will. These extra qualities remove humans from the machine category. So, no, humans should not be clasified as machines. Therefore, as machines do not have any of these "extra qualities" they cannot be classified as humans. September 23, 2008 2:50 AM
Luca said... 1. Definitions, Definitions, Definitions...If we say that a machine works in a strict routine, then it could be said that the strict business type are machines. They work on a tight timetable like machines ect. everybody has herd this comparison machines have a purpose, to give us entertainment, our mail. do humans have a purpose.
How do we know were not already machines. Machines that are made by us crap, so we come to think that there can not possibly be a computer with the power to be "smart".
Maybe our impossibly complex body is the machine. We don't have the correct definition. "Systems that work together flawlessly" - the system that keeps us alive, these are the real computers.
2. Ok... humans, machines...Terminator! Schwarzenegger played the role of a machine in a human body. The machine sent back in time in order to save the day. Schwarxeneggar had human characteristics, a human body, human reason, and intelligence. He was able to gain knowledge, he was as human as you or me, except for the fact that he was not biological but mechanical. The terminator had feelings (i think), Im not sure if it had a brain, probably not. what i am trying to say is that yea sure a machine could be human. Had the same feelings, shape, if it reasoned. Sure it doesn't have a heart or a brain but i would consider him human!
I can develop what i said with the simple question... how do you know that i am not a terminator! How do we know wether we are fully biological or mechanical. How do we know that society isn't already mixed and that machines haven't already become human. its the same story as the brain in a vat. September 23, 2008 3:06 AM
April said... Nathan, if I said "a computer is a human", you'll agree with this view, right? Since a computer is a machine, and you said that machines can be classified as humans...
I think that we have to have a clear definition of machines before we can start the discussion. I'm pretty sure that most people wouldn't classify a typewriter as a human being, but if clones are considered to be machines, we might argue that they are human beings.
Approaching from a different angle (ie. humans can be classified as machines), there are less conflicting problems. First off, a machines could mean "object with different systems working together", which, in our cases, would be our cells and organs. So on that count, humans can be classified as machines.
However, we still have to define what is a machine clearly: Are machines made by humans to serve humans? Are they programmed? Do humans craft and perfect them beforehand (are they manufactured)? Do they have to have the above qualities in order to be classified as machines? September 23, 2008 3:10 AM
nathan said... well april i do agree that a computer can be a human being because if you cant tell me what a human being is, or a machine is couldnt anything be a machine or a human being? and also about the clones, clones are a type of science, type writers are a type of science, so couldnt u classify them as the same. how can a clone be classed as a human being? just because it looks like us? what about disabled people or dwarves? In addition humans can be classified as a working system as well as computers but can you really classify things on their similarities taking into account that everything is different nothing is the same to an extent. also about the creating machines to serve humans, arnt humans created by this so called "god" or created by other human beings, to serve god or other human beings? September 23, 2008 9:15 PM
April said... Uh, Nathan, I'm not claiming that clones are humans becuase they look like us. I'm thinking that maybe we might be able to classify them as humans because they have a human genetic make-up. However, some might take the opposite view and claim that clones are not humans, because they're engeneered or created by other humans.
And using your point, "you can't classify things with similarities because everything boils down to be more or less similar" (which is a sensible point and makes a lot of sense), can you class a typewriter and a clone as machines just because they're both "a type of science"? (unless I got your comment "so couldnt u classify them as the same." totally wrong, and it's meant to be a statement, not a question as I've assumed. If that's the case, I'm sorry.)
Do machines need to have all of the characteristics I've mentioned in my last post to be classified as a machine? If there is a God who manufactured us to serve Him/Her, are we programmed as well? Would Plato's Forms theory, if that is indeed correct, mean that we're programmed? (which would lead us to another question: do we really have free will?) September 23, 2008 10:28 PM
Ziggy said... I dont think a machine can be classified as a human being regardless of human-like characteristics such as robots walking/talking. However I do think that humans can be classified as machines in terms of we're built a certain way, it may not be by putting pieces of metal together but the way humans are born is a process of building i suppose. Humans could be classified as machines because we're 'programmed' based on our environment and the way in which we're brought up. Our 'programming' is learning and we have choice whereas a machine can't learn and doesn't have choice. It only does what it has been programmed to do, which in a way is what humans do but humans are unpredictable and don't always do what they're taught to do. September 24, 2008 1:17 AM
Catriona said... 1) I think that a machine cannot be classified as a human being, as they do not have the same kind of emtions that a human would have, therefore unable to make decisions based upon emotions, and would therefore think of important decisions from a completely logical and statistical viewpoint. Also a robot would be unable to relate to a human as we will never be the same, with a beating heart and pulse, leading to no real connections like the ones you may feel for your best friend.
2) I think that a human will never be classified as a machine, as humans have some key differences to machines. However there are some people who will claim that someone else acts like a machine, which automatically associates to an insult saying that a person has no emotions, which would also show a difference the many people perceive to have between humans and machines which shows that machines and humans are not the same thing. September 25, 2008 12:02 AM
Chloé said... I personally think a machine couldn't be classified as a human being because although we all function to live, machines don't have emotions that human beings do. Machines have logic but its all based on what SHOULD happen not what COULD happen depending on your emotions towards the situation. Humans also have the ability for thinking for themselves whereas for computers, everything is created there beforehand and you continually input information. However going back to April's point what if everything WAS thought out for humans before we were created, emotions and thought? Does that mean we actually have free will? September 25, 2008 7:17 AM
Mikaela said... 1) I don't think machines can be considered human because, even if we can program them in certain ways to mimic human behaviour, they still lack the emotions and thought processes that underpin human behaviour. Also even if you can program a machine to account for different variables in its behaviour (such as the example in class today about getting punched) it can still only act according to its direct programming. Humans are able to change, adapt, and behave in entirely innovative ways depending on their emotions, experiences, etc and don't just think "if A and B are true then I should behave like C" our behaviour is probably not linear like this, but a machine's basically is. Also what about other problems such as the fact that machine of course don't have human genetic material?
2) I think humans may be able to be classified as machines in some respects because you could consider our organ systems as being analogous to the workings of a machine; they all work together to allow us to function. However I think that even if our bodies could be said to function like machines, our emotions and consciousness still set us apart. September 26, 2008 3:32 AM
Comment deleted This post has been removed by the author. September 26, 2008 6:37 PM
nathan said... I think humans can be classified as humans vice versa because we still havent really established what a machine is, what a Human is. People say we are biological "machines" but we still are a type of machine are we not? also to everyones point who said that "machines" lack emotions etc. how can we say this without know to what extent technology has gone, can AIs have emotion, we know they think etc. Do our diction of robots exist? Can AI's act "human", ask yourself this and if you dont know the answer then Humans COULD be classified as human beings vice versa September 26, 2008 6:38 PM
Louise said... I don't know if it is possible to create a machine that is as human-like or can respond in the same way as the machine in the role play yesterday. Maybe in 100 years time it will be possible. However, I still don't think that you could classify that machine as human. Although, we might not be able to distinguish humans from machines. If you accept the concept of dualism, then it follows that the one thing a machine would always be missing is its soul or non-physical selves. Perhaps it is our non physical selves that creates our sense of consciousness and all the things we feel distinguish us from machines. Even if we create an extremely human-like machine we wouldn't be able to create a soul for it and therefore it wouldn't be human. Of course this argument raises the issue of whether clones are human or not. Since clones are made up of the exact same genetic material as the human it was cloned from, we can not be sure that it has a soul. If you clone a human do you clone its soul as well? (obviously we don't physically clone souls)
If you apply this argument to whether a human being could be classified as a machine then it would follow that as long as the human still has its non-physical self it is not a machine. September 26, 2008 6:45 PM
Catriona said... There may be robots that we could MAKE into humans, but would it be the smae as a human being if we MAKE them into humans? As we do not even fully understand how the human mind works, or other things that we do on a daily basis, how would re replicate this into a robot? And is we would, would it be the same, or would the machine not be made out of the right 'stuff' which we cannot quite describe but feel is inside of us.
A human is different from a machine as it has free will. And how would you GIVE something free will, if it needs to be pregrammed to live? This may raise the question of whether WE are programmed or if WE have free will, but if we didnt have free will, would we be questioning if we had it or not? Wouldnt we be controlled so as not to wonder about these things, so as to prevent holes being found in our world?
But mainly, wouldnt it be a nice thought, that humans are too unique, too complex to be copied into a machine that could be made? Too much to us, that makes each of us individual that makes us different and unique. September 27, 2008 3:36 AM
April said... I'm kind of wondering... can we classify any being that thinks it can think (or a being that believes it has free will) as a human ? September 29, 2008 1:28 AM
April said... ((Sorry, forgot to type follow-up))
Or is the previous condition not enough, and we need to be made of the 'correct' biological substance in order for us to classify it as a human? September 29, 2008 1:30 AM
Luca said... Once again it is always important to identify what aspects of a human being we are looking at, and (yes we have heard it a million times now) a definition of what a machine is. For my argument i will be looking at a human beings ability to harness gravity in order to perform spectacular gymnastic feats.
Gymnasts are able to do a variety of amazing stunts including Trampolining and Tumbling. in order for the gymnast to do these maneuvers he has to be able to have a mind that can function and give his body commands. He also has to have muscles that can react to the commands allowing him make such maneuvers possible.
The reason i bring this up is because a machine that can imitate this human skill has been created. A group of students at MIT were successful in making a robot/machine that was able to; most importantly keeping its balance. Secondly it can tumble making a complete flip, landing on its feet. This machine, has a computer that acts as its brain, and many pistons simulating a humans muscles. This robot is one of many that have successfully been able to perform a human skill(s).
Of course this is another perfect example of a machine that can do what a human does successfully. The example i have taken focuses on the humans ability to perform acrobatic maneuvers. The machine has succeeded, in this case it is safe to say that the machine has simulated a human skill. The other machines that can simulate a humans movement (another aspect of being a human) have also succeeded.
Today you say that machines can never be humans. But there is already evidence provided that shows machines are able to 'simulate' 'human' skills. In 10 years, 100 years who is to say that these individual skills wont be integrated to form a human shaped machine, that has all of the characteristics we employ in defining a human being. It is also possible that in 100 years artificial organs will be made. At this stage the only thing holding people back from calling a machine a human, will be religion.
For today, it is ok to say/think "no, no, no... it can never happen, it wont happen, i am close minded". One hundred years ago wilbur and Orville Wright would have never though that one century later, it would be possible to eat, watch movies, and do a number 1/2 on a plane as it traveled at five hundred miles per hour at an altitude of Forty five thousand feet (an altitude that had never even been dreamed about reaching at the time), and at the same time being flown by a computer. This idea would have seemed to them fiction. Similarly we see a machine being human fiction. Interesting
But it is possible, everything is possible! haha :) September 29, 2008 1:50 AM
nathan said... yes, i totally agree with luca we say today that machines cant be human because they dont act human or feel human emotions. But we dont know to the extent of the research go, for all we know robots are used in war, they are already used for disarming bombs etc. Some people may say you still cant classify them as "human" but really if we cant define a human how can we exclude machines from being human? In addition they also might say that they are being programmed to the way they act, but what about AIs they suppisbly think by themselves. also in a way arnt humans programmed not by electronical circuits or by nuts and bolts but by experience. Experience it seems in the start of all our lives, we experience something and think about it, then act on it when a similar something happens again. Couldnt you say that it was programming just in a different way? September 29, 2008 1:59 AM
Luca said... "the only thing holding people back from calling a machine a human, will be religion"
This is not necessarily true, cognition will hold people back. September 29, 2008 2:06 AM
Mikaela said... Well I agree with Luca and Nathan, we can't know what will happen in the future and what we think is completely impossible now might change in a hundred years time. But does being able to perfectly stimulate human manual skills make a machine human, if it is still lacking the non-physical aspect/consciousness that humans have? If you think about it isn't it our consciousness that (supposedly) sets up apart from all other animals and from machines as well, even if machines can perform certain other cognitive tasks better than we can (like calculations) So I think that if we were to discover how consciousness arises in our brains and duplicate it in machines, maybe we could say that the machine is human. September 29, 2008 5:16 AM
Ziggy said... There is so much to read that i kind of skimmed through what everyone has written.... sorry :)
Luca - i love all ur analogies and i'm going to steal them.
Overall though, from what i keep reading the same question keeps popping up into my head 'what is a human?'
It's so hard to define a human. It's simple enough for us to define a machine and I think the majority of us are in agreement when I say humans can be classified as machines... but humans are so much harder to define. We're such complex creatures!
This also makes me think what if humans aren't the most superior creatures - what if we're all ghosts thinking that we are walking around living lives. What if this world we're living on is a simulation and we're all machines programmed with memories. Like in the movie 'The Island' with Ewan McGreggor and Scarlet Johansen. Those clones have been grown in a lab underground and given memories and menial tasks to do. What if we're in this hollographic world that we want to believe is real but in fact we're just some silly science experiment.
That's all I have to add really... my mind isn't working much to question and rebutt. I've also gone completely off-topic :) September 29, 2008 7:08 AM
Jack said... At this point in time we can definitively say that we cannot classify a machine as human as the technology to even consider a machine with complex autonomous thoughts is just too far beyond us.
However, I also believe that there is no way we can classify a machine as human or vice versa.
firstly I don't believe that humans can become machines because we mainly do things for ourselves and the interest for ourselves or our community. A machine is meant to serve a purpose to others and have no selfish needs which is a core part of being human. If humans weren't selfish then our civilization could not advance as machines can't advance or even create a civilization because they're interests lie in others and not themselves even if they'd developed the ability to think for themselves, had they gained full independence then they wouldn't be machines as they wouldn't be fully committed to the service of others (the whole concept of a machine.
Although attempts have been made to make humans into machines,(hebrews in egypt, african slaves) it is in our very nature to reject total and unquestioning authority and to maintain a self interest and ambition. Slaves never served people out of unquestioning authority but out of the need to survive, the independent need to survive (perhaps even the selfish* need to survive".
If one were to make a machine that had its own self interest, I don't believe this would be a machine as it doesn't fully serve its purpose as they're is ambiguity to whether it will fulfill its purpose as a number 1 priority or take its selfish desires as higher priority
*selfish not really meant in negative connotation, just cant really think of any other word September 29, 2008 7:38 AM
Luca said... Once again... yes machines are built to serve a prepose (you could argue that god built us to serve a prepose... so what the difference) but these individual human like qualities of machines that we have been able to create, suggests that there is a possibility...
Firstly Jack, there have been machines that can reason and be "selfish" . The machine i was talking about earlyer can judge the terain it is on, and correct its posture, and can think ahead of time to plan for the next move.
This discussion becomes difficult when we begin thinking about what we would call a machine that was human, once again cognition comes into play. But my main point is that, simply... YOU DONT KNOW nether do i for that matter. you can not dismiss it.
have to go get my ferry! September 29, 2008 4:02 PM
nathan said... Zig, you say that machines are easy to define, can u define them then without using a diction? name everything it has to be, only the smartest people at electronics can design such "creatures". cant robots be creatures? when you bring up the point about the island, they are clones of other people does that make them human? humans are creating them ok so thats good, but we have still have twisted genetics to create them. IF your saying this couldnt robots be implanted with some human DNA and be called what we think is "human"? September 29, 2008 6:09 PM
April said... I think it's ok to classify machines as humans if they fit the 5 criterias (have emotions, language, mental states, can form social relationships and be a responsible moral agent). However, we might have lingering doubts about their personhood because they're made artificially/programmed. On the other hand, how do we know that we're not programmed (Plato's Forms)? We're also made/created by other humans, or higher being(s) like God(s) if you believe in deities. We tend to believe that we're different to machines because even though we're made by other humans, we cannot be completely controlled (programmed) by other people before our birth (even though this may not be true).
I guess we'll have to create a machine that has a 'blank' state and learns to do the things in the 5 criteria in order to be more convincing (that machines can be considered people) February 9, 2009 12:07 AM
Catriona said... 1)I do not believe that a machine be classified as a human, as there as some characteristics that a machine will possess that a human will not. For example, if humans were able to make machines, it is possible that we would decide to make them greater than human in some ways, such as with greater intelligence or srength, which can only be robotically manufactured. A machine can also not be classified as a human as there are some aspects of a humans character that a machine will not possess, such as genuine emotions, or the ability to learn things. If this were to be possible in the future, it would not be the same, as this would be that product of technology, and would have to be programmed into the machine, in a different way from a human.
2)I believe that a human cannot be classified as a machine, due to the fact that a human has different intrinsic characteristics from a machine. Such as emotion or feelings. There is also the physical fact that physically, humans are very different from machines, such as their bodies, of bloody pumping through their veins, or adrenalin. While this may at some point be manufactured, this is a natural process that occurs in humans, so that fact that you would have to manufacture it would also be a main thing that differs between as human and a machine, as it would not be naturally occurring. February 9, 2009 1:04 AM
Ziggy said... When we take into account all the new things we've learnt I still believe that machines can't be human.
Humans are, in my opinion, a mixture of beings with mental states and physical traits. They have to be all those things such as 'responsible moral agent' etc.. but they must also have the physical appearance.
However, when human beings get replacement body parts or incapable of being able to perform certain mental states I believe that they are still human because the other aspects of the criteria are fullfilled but if their entire body is replaced i.e. every single cell is machine like or fake skin and things then they are considered to be fake or mechanic and not human.
When machines are human designed and have human then they cannot be classified as human beings.... (to be continued. I'm using a public computer and am being kicked off of it) February 9, 2009 2:25 AM
Jack said... I think I might have spotted a contradiction in the question. The question doesn't really ask can a machine be a human being because that assumes that the object needs to be both a human being AND a machine. If we split it that way than we're really asking can a simultaneously exist as a human being and a machine. The answer I believe is simply no because we've earlier discussed that there are differences between the two. I personally think that it is contradictory to say that a human being can be a machine because just by saying that you have denounced that persons humanity by saying it is a machine. I think at this point the proposition seems inarguable and without much grounds for a plausible explanation opposite to my standpoint but because that's the cheap way out of homework I'll write a bit as if I didn't interpret the question that way.
1. a human I believe cannot really be classified as a machine as that means that it needs to serve a purpose to others and not worry about his/her own personal aspirations and goals. If a human being was born that only wanted to serve others than that still means it has its own goals and aspirations - to serve others- and that satisfies the human being as its fulfilling it's dreams. A machine has to be made by someone and have no personal satisfaction of doing anything, it should just serve the purpose. A toaster doesn't get excited when it's served its purpose (although it may be confusing as it does seem excited when the toast pops out, this is simply a clever illusion employed by the toaster factory to stop us from questioning the motives of our toasters) and this goes for any other machine as well. Some may argue God created us with a purpose. I disagree with this slightly as god didn't make us with a purpose god made us and the purpose was a secondary (be it stewardship or other such things) but he gave us free will also which suggests that as "machines" we have the choice to decide to fulfill our "purpose". and because of this we cannot be machines because machines do not question and aren't meant to question, the job is simply to be carried out which makes the "purpose" invalid as there is no suggestion that we need follow such a purpose. February 9, 2009 7:56 AM
nathan said... I believe that a machine can be a human being and a human being can be a machine. if a theist were to say that we are not i would argue that machines are programmed systems in order to function correct? then i would argue that we are exactly the same, that God, or some higher being created us as a biological consisting of personalities etc. in order to live or to function. Where as if i were to argue against an atheist i would argue the development of AIs as well as the argument above. Right now machines may not be classed as humans, but when we get into a high biological and technological level. We as people dont know the capabilities of the military with the production of AI's and clones. Who knows these AI's and clones may learn to develop human traits, then how can we exclude them? especially if we aren't even sure what makes up a human being or us. February 10, 2009 2:57 PM
1 comment:
Louise said...
1. A human could be considered to be a machine by definition. Humans contain a range of different systems working together to function and this is essentially what a machine does. On the other hand, I don't think a human could ever truly be a machine as long as they still have a functioning human brain. Even if you had your arm amputated and you had a bionic arm or something to replace it, you would still be a human even if that part of you was a machine.
2. I don't think a machine could become human. Even if a machine has many human characteristics there would still be something to distinguish them from an actual human being. I don't really think that it is possible for a machine to truly develop the skills to reason philosophically or to feel emotion. It could be possible that you could hook up a human brain to a machine which would mean that the machine was capable of all the things that a human is capable of. Even so, it is hard to consider a machine with a human brain to be human... the machine would have to have a human form as well.
September 23, 2008 1:50 AM
nathan said...
Can a machine be classified as a human being? Vice versa
I believe that machines can be classed as a human being because we haven’t established what a “real” human being is, in addition what exactly is a machine? Is a clone a machine? If a sheep is cloned is the clone a sheep? And if it is how do you justify this after it has been genetically modified to the DNA of the original sheep? Also for a religious person couldn’t we say human beings are god’s machines? We have a creator and to some extent told how to live our “lives” by this creator.
A human being can also be classed as machine, just because we’ve made up an interpretation of a machine with electronically parts doesn’t mean we are our “own type” of machine.
September 23, 2008 2:33 AM
Natalia said...
On one hand, a human can be classified as a machine in the sense that it has different 'parts' (heart, lungs brain etc.) working together to carry out certain functions. However, humans have the ability to think for themselves and they are able to express a range of different emotions. They can reason and question what they have learned (what they have been 'programed' in a sense) and are able to act out of free will. These extra qualities remove humans from the machine category. So, no, humans should not be clasified as machines. Therefore, as machines do not have any of these "extra qualities" they cannot be classified as humans.
September 23, 2008 2:50 AM
Luca said...
1.
Definitions, Definitions, Definitions...If we say that a machine works in a strict routine, then it could be said that the strict business type are machines. They work on a tight timetable like machines ect. everybody has herd this comparison machines have a purpose, to give us entertainment, our mail. do humans have a purpose.
How do we know were not already machines. Machines that are made by us crap, so we come to think that there can not possibly be a computer with the power to be "smart".
Maybe our impossibly complex body is the machine. We don't have the correct definition. "Systems that work together flawlessly" - the system that keeps us alive, these are the real computers.
2.
Ok... humans, machines...Terminator! Schwarzenegger played the role of a machine in a human body. The machine sent back in time in order to save the day. Schwarxeneggar had human characteristics, a human body, human reason, and intelligence. He was able to gain knowledge, he was as human as you or me, except for the fact that he was not biological but mechanical. The terminator had feelings (i think), Im not sure if it had a brain, probably not.
what i am trying to say is that yea sure a machine could be human. Had the same feelings, shape, if it reasoned. Sure it doesn't have a heart or a brain but i would consider him human!
I can develop what i said with the simple question... how do you know that i am not a terminator! How do we know wether we are fully biological or mechanical. How do we know that society isn't already mixed and that machines haven't already become human. its the same story as the brain in a vat.
September 23, 2008 3:06 AM
April said...
Nathan, if I said "a computer is a human", you'll agree with this view, right? Since a computer is a machine, and you said that machines can be classified as humans...
I think that we have to have a clear definition of machines before we can start the discussion. I'm pretty sure that most people wouldn't classify a typewriter as a human being, but if clones are considered to be machines, we might argue that they are human beings.
Approaching from a different angle (ie. humans can be classified as machines), there are less conflicting problems. First off, a machines could mean "object with different systems working together", which, in our cases, would be our cells and organs. So on that count, humans can be classified as machines.
However, we still have to define what is a machine clearly: Are machines made by humans to serve humans? Are they programmed? Do humans craft and perfect them beforehand (are they manufactured)? Do they have to have the above qualities in order to be classified as machines?
September 23, 2008 3:10 AM
nathan said...
well april i do agree that a computer can be a human being because if you cant tell me what a human being is, or a machine is couldnt anything be a machine or a human being?
and also about the clones, clones are a type of science, type writers are a type of science, so couldnt u classify them as the same. how can a clone be classed as a human being? just because it looks like us? what about disabled people or dwarves?
In addition humans can be classified as a working system as well as computers but can you really classify things on their similarities taking into account that everything is different nothing is the same to an extent.
also about the creating machines to serve humans, arnt humans created by this so called "god" or created by other human beings, to serve god or other human beings?
September 23, 2008 9:15 PM
April said...
Uh, Nathan, I'm not claiming that clones are humans becuase they look like us. I'm thinking that maybe we might be able to classify them as humans because they have a human genetic make-up. However, some might take the opposite view and claim that clones are not humans, because they're engeneered or created by other humans.
And using your point, "you can't classify things with similarities because everything boils down to be more or less similar" (which is a sensible point and makes a lot of sense), can you class a typewriter and a clone as machines just because they're both "a type of science"? (unless I got your comment "so couldnt u classify them as the same." totally wrong, and it's meant to be a statement, not a question as I've assumed. If that's the case, I'm sorry.)
Do machines need to have all of the characteristics I've mentioned in my last post to be classified as a machine? If there is a God who manufactured us to serve Him/Her, are we programmed as well? Would Plato's Forms theory, if that is indeed correct, mean that we're programmed? (which would lead us to another question: do we really have free will?)
September 23, 2008 10:28 PM
Ziggy said...
I dont think a machine can be classified as a human being regardless of human-like characteristics such as robots walking/talking. However I do think that humans can be classified as machines in terms of we're built a certain way, it may not be by putting pieces of metal together but the way humans are born is a process of building i suppose. Humans could be classified as machines because we're 'programmed' based on our environment and the way in which we're brought up. Our 'programming' is learning and we have choice whereas a machine can't learn and doesn't have choice. It only does what it has been programmed to do, which in a way is what humans do but humans are unpredictable and don't always do what they're taught to do.
September 24, 2008 1:17 AM
Catriona said...
1) I think that a machine cannot be classified as a human being, as they do not have the same kind of emtions that a human would have, therefore unable to make decisions based upon emotions, and would therefore think of important decisions from a completely logical and statistical viewpoint. Also a robot would be unable to relate to a human as we will never be the same, with a beating heart and pulse, leading to no real connections like the ones you may feel for your best friend.
2) I think that a human will never be classified as a machine, as humans have some key differences to machines. However there are some people who will claim that someone else acts like a machine, which automatically associates to an insult saying that a person has no emotions, which would also show a difference the many people perceive to have between humans and machines which shows that machines and humans are not the same thing.
September 25, 2008 12:02 AM
Chloé said...
I personally think a machine couldn't be classified as a human being because although we all function to live, machines don't have emotions that human beings do. Machines have logic but its all based on what SHOULD happen not what COULD happen depending on your emotions towards the situation.
Humans also have the ability for thinking for themselves whereas for computers, everything is created there beforehand and you continually input information.
However going back to April's point what if everything WAS thought out for humans before we were created, emotions and thought? Does that mean we actually have free will?
September 25, 2008 7:17 AM
Mikaela said...
1) I don't think machines can be considered human because, even if we can program them in certain ways to mimic human behaviour, they still lack the emotions and thought processes that underpin human behaviour.
Also even if you can program a machine to account for different variables in its behaviour (such as the example in class today about getting punched) it can still only act according to its direct programming. Humans are able to change, adapt, and behave in entirely innovative ways depending on their emotions, experiences, etc and don't just think "if A and B are true then I should behave like C" our behaviour is probably not linear like this, but a machine's basically is.
Also what about other problems such as the fact that machine of course don't have human genetic material?
2) I think humans may be able to be classified as machines in some respects because you could consider our organ systems as being analogous to the workings of a machine; they all work together to allow us to function. However I think that even if our bodies could be said to function like machines, our emotions and consciousness still set us apart.
September 26, 2008 3:32 AM
Comment deleted
This post has been removed by the author.
September 26, 2008 6:37 PM
nathan said...
I think humans can be classified as humans vice versa because we still havent really established what a machine is, what a Human is. People say we are biological "machines" but we still are a type of machine are we not?
also to everyones point who said that "machines" lack emotions etc. how can we say this without know to what extent technology has gone, can AIs have emotion, we know they think etc. Do our diction of robots exist? Can AI's act "human", ask yourself this and if you dont know the answer then Humans COULD be classified as human beings vice versa
September 26, 2008 6:38 PM
Louise said...
I don't know if it is possible to create a machine that is as human-like or can respond in the same way as the machine in the role play yesterday. Maybe in 100 years time it will be possible. However, I still don't think that you could classify that machine as human. Although, we might not be able to distinguish humans from machines.
If you accept the concept of dualism, then it follows that the one thing a machine would always be missing is its soul or non-physical selves. Perhaps it is our non physical selves that creates our sense of consciousness and all the things we feel distinguish us from machines. Even if we create an extremely human-like machine we wouldn't be able to create a soul for it and therefore it wouldn't be human.
Of course this argument raises the issue of whether clones are human or not. Since clones are made up of the exact same genetic material as the human it was cloned from, we can not be sure that it has a soul. If you clone a human do you clone its soul as well? (obviously we don't physically clone souls)
If you apply this argument to whether a human being could be classified as a machine then it would follow that as long as the human still has its non-physical self it is not a machine.
September 26, 2008 6:45 PM
Catriona said...
There may be robots that we could MAKE into humans, but would it be the smae as a human being if we MAKE them into humans? As we do not even fully understand how the human mind works, or other things that we do on a daily basis, how would re replicate this into a robot? And is we would, would it be the same, or would the machine not be made out of the right 'stuff' which we cannot quite describe but feel is inside of us.
A human is different from a machine as it has free will. And how would you GIVE something free will, if it needs to be pregrammed to live? This may raise the question of whether WE are programmed or if WE have free will, but if we didnt have free will, would we be questioning if we had it or not? Wouldnt we be controlled so as not to wonder about these things, so as to prevent holes being found in our world?
But mainly, wouldnt it be a nice thought, that humans are too unique, too complex to be copied into a machine that could be made? Too much to us, that makes each of us individual that makes us different and unique.
September 27, 2008 3:36 AM
April said...
I'm kind of wondering... can we classify any being that thinks it can think (or a being that believes it has free will) as a human ?
September 29, 2008 1:28 AM
April said...
((Sorry, forgot to type follow-up))
Or is the previous condition not enough, and we need to be made of the 'correct' biological substance in order for us to classify it as a human?
September 29, 2008 1:30 AM
Luca said...
Once again it is always important to identify what aspects of a human being we are looking at, and (yes we have heard it a million times now) a definition of what a machine is. For my argument i will be looking at a human beings ability to harness gravity in order to perform spectacular gymnastic feats.
Gymnasts are able to do a variety of amazing stunts including Trampolining and Tumbling. in order for the gymnast to do these maneuvers he has to be able to have a mind that can function and give his body commands. He also has to have muscles that can react to the commands allowing him make such maneuvers possible.
The reason i bring this up is because a machine that can imitate this human skill has been created. A group of students at MIT were successful in making a robot/machine that was able to; most importantly keeping its balance. Secondly it can tumble making a complete flip, landing on its feet. This machine, has a computer that acts as its brain, and many pistons simulating a humans muscles. This robot is one of many that have successfully been able to perform a human skill(s).
Of course this is another perfect example of a machine that can do what a human does successfully. The example i have taken focuses on the humans ability to perform acrobatic maneuvers. The machine has succeeded, in this case it is safe to say that the machine has simulated a human skill. The other machines that can simulate a humans movement (another aspect of being a human) have also succeeded.
Today you say that machines can never be humans. But there is already evidence provided that shows machines are able to 'simulate' 'human' skills. In 10 years, 100 years who is to say that these individual skills wont be integrated to form a human shaped machine, that has all of the characteristics we employ in defining a human being. It is also possible that in 100 years artificial organs will be made. At this stage the only thing holding people back from calling a machine a human, will be religion.
For today, it is ok to say/think "no, no, no... it can never happen, it wont happen, i am close minded". One hundred years ago wilbur and Orville Wright would have never though that one century later, it would be possible to eat, watch movies, and do a number 1/2 on a plane as it traveled at five hundred miles per hour at an altitude of Forty five thousand feet (an altitude that had never even been dreamed about reaching at the time), and at the same time being flown by a computer. This idea would have seemed to them fiction. Similarly we see a machine being human fiction. Interesting
But it is possible, everything is possible! haha :)
September 29, 2008 1:50 AM
nathan said...
yes, i totally agree with luca we say today that machines cant be human because they dont act human or feel human emotions. But we dont know to the extent of the research go, for all we know robots are used in war, they are already used for disarming bombs etc.
Some people may say you still cant classify them as "human" but really if we cant define a human how can we exclude machines from being human? In addition they also might say that they are being programmed to the way they act, but what about AIs they suppisbly think by themselves. also in a way arnt humans programmed not by electronical circuits or by nuts and bolts but by experience. Experience it seems in the start of all our lives, we experience something and think about it, then act on it when a similar something happens again. Couldnt you say that it was programming just in a different way?
September 29, 2008 1:59 AM
Luca said...
"the only thing holding people back from calling a machine a human, will be religion"
This is not necessarily true, cognition will hold people back.
September 29, 2008 2:06 AM
Mikaela said...
Well I agree with Luca and Nathan, we can't know what will happen in the future and what we think is completely impossible now might change in a hundred years time.
But does being able to perfectly stimulate human manual skills make a machine human, if it is still lacking the non-physical aspect/consciousness that humans have? If you think about it isn't it our consciousness that (supposedly) sets up apart from all other animals and from machines as well, even if machines can perform certain other cognitive tasks better than we can (like calculations)
So I think that if we were to discover how consciousness arises in our brains and duplicate it in machines, maybe we could say that the machine is human.
September 29, 2008 5:16 AM
Ziggy said...
There is so much to read that i kind of skimmed through what everyone has written.... sorry :)
Luca - i love all ur analogies and i'm going to steal them.
Overall though, from what i keep reading the same question keeps popping up into my head 'what is a human?'
It's so hard to define a human. It's simple enough for us to define a machine and I think the majority of us are in agreement when I say humans can be classified as machines... but humans are so much harder to define. We're such complex creatures!
This also makes me think what if humans aren't the most superior creatures - what if we're all ghosts thinking that we are walking around living lives. What if this world we're living on is a simulation and we're all machines programmed with memories. Like in the movie 'The Island' with Ewan McGreggor and Scarlet Johansen. Those clones have been grown in a lab underground and given memories and menial tasks to do. What if we're in this hollographic world that we want to believe is real but in fact we're just some silly science experiment.
That's all I have to add really... my mind isn't working much to question and rebutt. I've also gone completely off-topic :)
September 29, 2008 7:08 AM
Jack said...
At this point in time we can definitively say that we cannot classify a machine as human as the technology to even consider a machine with complex autonomous thoughts is just too far beyond us.
However, I also believe that there is no way we can classify a machine as human or vice versa.
firstly I don't believe that humans can become machines because we mainly do things for ourselves and the interest for ourselves or our community. A machine is meant to serve a purpose to others and have no selfish needs which is a core part of being human. If humans weren't selfish then our civilization could not advance as machines can't advance or even create a civilization because they're interests lie in others and not themselves even if they'd developed the ability to think for themselves, had they gained full independence then they wouldn't be machines as they wouldn't be fully committed to the service of others (the whole concept of a machine.
Although attempts have been made to make humans into machines,(hebrews in egypt, african slaves) it is in our very nature to reject total and unquestioning authority and to maintain a self interest and ambition. Slaves never served people out of unquestioning authority but out of the need to survive, the independent need to survive (perhaps even the selfish* need to survive".
If one were to make a machine that had its own self interest, I don't believe this would be a machine as it doesn't fully serve its purpose as they're is ambiguity to whether it will fulfill its purpose as a number 1 priority or take its selfish desires as higher priority
*selfish not really meant in negative connotation, just cant really think of any other word
September 29, 2008 7:38 AM
Luca said...
Once again... yes machines are built to serve a prepose (you could argue that god built us to serve a prepose... so what the difference) but these individual human like qualities of machines that we have been able to create, suggests that there is a possibility...
Firstly Jack, there have been machines that can reason and be "selfish" . The machine i was talking about earlyer can judge the terain it is on, and correct its posture, and can think ahead of time to plan for the next move.
This discussion becomes difficult when we begin thinking about what we would call a machine that was human, once again cognition comes into play. But my main point is that, simply... YOU DONT KNOW nether do i for that matter. you can not dismiss it.
have to go get my ferry!
September 29, 2008 4:02 PM
nathan said...
Zig, you say that machines are easy to define, can u define them then without using a diction? name everything it has to be, only the smartest people at electronics can design such "creatures". cant robots be creatures?
when you bring up the point about the island, they are clones of other people does that make them human? humans are creating them ok so thats good, but we have still have twisted genetics to create them. IF your saying this couldnt robots be implanted with some human DNA and be called what we think is "human"?
September 29, 2008 6:09 PM
April said...
I think it's ok to classify machines as humans if they fit the 5 criterias (have emotions, language, mental states, can form social relationships and be a responsible moral agent). However, we might have lingering doubts about their personhood because they're made artificially/programmed. On the other hand, how do we know that we're not programmed (Plato's Forms)? We're also made/created by other humans, or higher being(s) like God(s) if you believe in deities. We tend to believe that we're different to machines because even though we're made by other humans, we cannot be completely controlled (programmed) by other people before our birth (even though this may not be true).
I guess we'll have to create a machine that has a 'blank' state and learns to do the things in the 5 criteria in order to be more convincing (that machines can be considered people)
February 9, 2009 12:07 AM
Catriona said...
1)I do not believe that a machine be classified as a human, as there as some characteristics that a machine will possess that a human will not. For example, if humans were able to make machines, it is possible that we would decide to make them greater than human in some ways, such as with greater intelligence or srength, which can only be robotically manufactured. A machine can also not be classified as a human as there are some aspects of a humans character that a machine will not possess, such as genuine emotions, or the ability to learn things. If this were to be possible in the future, it would not be the same, as this would be that product of technology, and would have to be programmed into the machine, in a different way from a human.
2)I believe that a human cannot be classified as a machine, due to the fact that a human has different intrinsic characteristics from a machine. Such as emotion or feelings. There is also the physical fact that physically, humans are very different from machines, such as their bodies, of bloody pumping through their veins, or adrenalin. While this may at some point be manufactured, this is a natural process that occurs in humans, so that fact that you would have to manufacture it would also be a main thing that differs between as human and a machine, as it would not be naturally occurring.
February 9, 2009 1:04 AM
Ziggy said...
When we take into account all the new things we've learnt I still believe that machines can't be human.
Humans are, in my opinion, a mixture of beings with mental states and physical traits. They have to be all those things such as 'responsible moral agent' etc.. but they must also have the physical appearance.
However, when human beings get replacement body parts or incapable of being able to perform certain mental states I believe that they are still human because the other aspects of the criteria are fullfilled but if their entire body is replaced i.e. every single cell is machine like or fake skin and things then they are considered to be fake or mechanic and not human.
When machines are human designed and have human then they cannot be classified as human beings.... (to be continued. I'm using a public computer and am being kicked off of it)
February 9, 2009 2:25 AM
Jack said...
I think I might have spotted a contradiction in the question. The question doesn't really ask can a machine be a human being because that assumes that the object needs to be both a human being AND a machine. If we split it that way than we're really asking can a simultaneously exist as a human being and a machine. The answer I believe is simply no because we've earlier discussed that there are differences between the two. I personally think that it is contradictory to say that a human being can be a machine because just by saying that you have denounced that persons humanity by saying it is a machine. I think at this point the proposition seems inarguable and without much grounds for a plausible explanation opposite to my standpoint but because that's the cheap way out of homework I'll write a bit as if I didn't interpret the question that way.
1. a human I believe cannot really be classified as a machine as that means that it needs to serve a purpose to others and not worry about his/her own personal aspirations and goals. If a human being was born that only wanted to serve others than that still means it has its own goals and aspirations - to serve others- and that satisfies the human being as its fulfilling it's dreams. A machine has to be made by someone and have no personal satisfaction of doing anything, it should just serve the purpose. A toaster doesn't get excited when it's served its purpose (although it may be confusing as it does seem excited when the toast pops out, this is simply a clever illusion employed by the toaster factory to stop us from questioning the motives of our toasters) and this goes for any other machine as well. Some may argue God created us with a purpose. I disagree with this slightly as god didn't make us with a purpose god made us and the purpose was a secondary (be it stewardship or other such things) but he gave us free will also which suggests that as "machines" we have the choice to decide to fulfill our "purpose". and because of this we cannot be machines because machines do not question and aren't meant to question, the job is simply to be carried out which makes the "purpose" invalid as there is no suggestion that we need follow such a purpose.
February 9, 2009 7:56 AM
nathan said...
I believe that a machine can be a human being and a human being can be a machine. if a theist were to say that we are not i would argue that machines are programmed systems in order to function correct? then i would argue that we are exactly the same, that God, or some higher being created us as a biological consisting of personalities etc. in order to live or to function.
Where as if i were to argue against an atheist i would argue the development of AIs as well as the argument above. Right now machines may not be classed as humans, but when we get into a high biological and technological level.
We as people dont know the capabilities of the military with the production of AI's and clones.
Who knows these AI's and clones may learn to develop human traits, then how can we exclude them? especially if we aren't even sure what makes up a human being or us.
February 10, 2009 2:57 PM
Post a Comment