"My mobile phone is probably about as complex a machine as a small fish."
Um, no.
Your mobile phone is not even as complex as a single living cell (ironic use of words)
I think rights should be given to something (either alive or inanimate) when that something is important to us. ie Why do we try to kill cancer cells, don't they have rights? No, we hate them. Kill them all I say, and I'm not voting cancer in, we already have religion.
I'm going to have to disagree there. There are certain cells which are complex indeed, but not all are. I think it's valid to compare genetic code to programming code because, essentially, it's not really that different as a concept.
For a mobile phone running either of the three most common operating systems, the lines of programming vastly outnumber lines of genetic code in a single cell, but not the sum total of a complex organism with an advanced brain.
I did do a bit of research before I posted this question and thought hard about the type of creature I could validly compare to my mobile phone. I maintain "small fish" as a valid analogy. Especially as it is vague enough to give me lots of wiggle room. :)
Well you can run a computer code and expect everything to work. But a genetic code won't work without a little life included, since the code, at best, could only make a dead cell. I suppose if you had said a 'dead' fish, that would have been closer.
The complexity of a living fish who's processing brain can do much more than provide communicative ability, but even create new life, far outweighs a stand alone mobile phone.
think about that for a minute, the computer code cant necessarily stand on its own either, cause it requires an assembler program and a computer to work. the assembled program has to be run inside a computer, which is able to read and follow the code, just like The genes in the human body are the blueprints for building and using the life processes in a person, that computer code tell the computer how to make and use a program. Also, in many cases, the program (or organism) as a whole can run even when there are problems in the "code" or "genes", the problems will sometimes show themselves in certian ways, like a video game glitch or a mental defect. some errors may even prevent the program or organism from working altogether.
without life or the computer, the genes and/or computer program are just empty code.
You could also say that humans require an evolutionary perfection on Earth to even be produced in the first place.
The topic was will they 'ever' be given rights. Whereas you could argue that an android with living external tissue (obviously the living tissue off some other animal or possibly even synthetics) BUT in essence still a machine on the inside, could that 'thing' be given rights?
What classes as 'rights' in the first place? Is it greed or suffering or even common good in the present community? I wonder if 'rights' are feelings and not just based on intelligence. I'm quite sure the supercomputers of the world may far outweigh the intelligence of some of our earthly beings in our world. Even a chicken has rights, but strangely insects don't seem to. Is it based purely on intelligence or the feelings of pain, loss, and suffering? Even love?
I suppose the question could then be, if an intelligent 'machine' was able to create other intelligent machines (you could call them offspring) and therefore reproduce, would they THEN have rights? Or would they also need to also 'feel' a sense of love and pain and even society membership to finally be given rights? Even if those rights were to just treat them with respect.
No, a cellular phone is no where close to a living cell (or better yet, organism). But maybe 'one day' (just like life before them) 'machines' will have their own right of freedom of movement and speech, at which time I'd say that present day humans will be extinct! Humans have only been around for approximately 200K years (before that in another lifeform), in a 13.7 Billion year old known universe. I'd say that the next 'lifeform' species could easily be android, based purely on the weakness of human limitations within our short time alive.
Humans will be obsolete, all hail the mighty machine. For without them most of us would be dead already.
yes, Im aware of the main question, but the point you brought up was about how computer code would run just by itself, where genetic code cannot. that was my response to that point.
I do agree that phones are no where near as complex as even a fish, considering we have million dollar humanoid robots that are vastly inferior to even a dog, a mobile phones processor would still be vastly outclassed by a fish
Well a Russian known as Dmitry Itskov is serious about 'neuroscience, android robotics, and cybernetic immortality' (intelligent living computers)
Meaning that he intends to create a robotic brain by 2045 and thus allow human immortality! (more at 2045.com).
So you stated that the computer cannot run on its own (although I also stated that humans also need other evolutionary factors). At which stage would you agree that a computer is living with rights, possibly the computer organic intelligence would solve that ;) Actually it makes you wonder if we were somewhat created by a previous intelligent lifeform ourselves! Its all the wonders of science.
Oh I was implying that religion is a cancer and 'seemed' to go along with things that don't require any respect or rights. To tell you the truth it could be omitted, it has little to do with topic, except as a lead on from the fish analogy (fish being the common recognized symbol of Christianity).
IIN to wonder if machines will ever be given rights?
← View full post
"My mobile phone is probably about as complex a machine as a small fish."
Um, no.
Your mobile phone is not even as complex as a single living cell (ironic use of words)
I think rights should be given to something (either alive or inanimate) when that something is important to us. ie Why do we try to kill cancer cells, don't they have rights? No, we hate them. Kill them all I say, and I'm not voting cancer in, we already have religion.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
bananaface
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm going to have to disagree there. There are certain cells which are complex indeed, but not all are. I think it's valid to compare genetic code to programming code because, essentially, it's not really that different as a concept.
For a mobile phone running either of the three most common operating systems, the lines of programming vastly outnumber lines of genetic code in a single cell, but not the sum total of a complex organism with an advanced brain.
I did do a bit of research before I posted this question and thought hard about the type of creature I could validly compare to my mobile phone. I maintain "small fish" as a valid analogy. Especially as it is vague enough to give me lots of wiggle room. :)
--
Dad
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well you can run a computer code and expect everything to work. But a genetic code won't work without a little life included, since the code, at best, could only make a dead cell. I suppose if you had said a 'dead' fish, that would have been closer.
The complexity of a living fish who's processing brain can do much more than provide communicative ability, but even create new life, far outweighs a stand alone mobile phone.
--
Legion
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
think about that for a minute, the computer code cant necessarily stand on its own either, cause it requires an assembler program and a computer to work. the assembled program has to be run inside a computer, which is able to read and follow the code, just like The genes in the human body are the blueprints for building and using the life processes in a person, that computer code tell the computer how to make and use a program. Also, in many cases, the program (or organism) as a whole can run even when there are problems in the "code" or "genes", the problems will sometimes show themselves in certian ways, like a video game glitch or a mental defect. some errors may even prevent the program or organism from working altogether.
without life or the computer, the genes and/or computer program are just empty code.
--
Dad
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You could also say that humans require an evolutionary perfection on Earth to even be produced in the first place.
The topic was will they 'ever' be given rights. Whereas you could argue that an android with living external tissue (obviously the living tissue off some other animal or possibly even synthetics) BUT in essence still a machine on the inside, could that 'thing' be given rights?
What classes as 'rights' in the first place? Is it greed or suffering or even common good in the present community? I wonder if 'rights' are feelings and not just based on intelligence. I'm quite sure the supercomputers of the world may far outweigh the intelligence of some of our earthly beings in our world. Even a chicken has rights, but strangely insects don't seem to. Is it based purely on intelligence or the feelings of pain, loss, and suffering? Even love?
I suppose the question could then be, if an intelligent 'machine' was able to create other intelligent machines (you could call them offspring) and therefore reproduce, would they THEN have rights? Or would they also need to also 'feel' a sense of love and pain and even society membership to finally be given rights? Even if those rights were to just treat them with respect.
No, a cellular phone is no where close to a living cell (or better yet, organism). But maybe 'one day' (just like life before them) 'machines' will have their own right of freedom of movement and speech, at which time I'd say that present day humans will be extinct! Humans have only been around for approximately 200K years (before that in another lifeform), in a 13.7 Billion year old known universe. I'd say that the next 'lifeform' species could easily be android, based purely on the weakness of human limitations within our short time alive.
Humans will be obsolete, all hail the mighty machine. For without them most of us would be dead already.
--
Legion
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
yes, Im aware of the main question, but the point you brought up was about how computer code would run just by itself, where genetic code cannot. that was my response to that point.
I do agree that phones are no where near as complex as even a fish, considering we have million dollar humanoid robots that are vastly inferior to even a dog, a mobile phones processor would still be vastly outclassed by a fish
--
Dad
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well a Russian known as Dmitry Itskov is serious about 'neuroscience, android robotics, and cybernetic immortality' (intelligent living computers)
Meaning that he intends to create a robotic brain by 2045 and thus allow human immortality! (more at 2045.com).
So you stated that the computer cannot run on its own (although I also stated that humans also need other evolutionary factors). At which stage would you agree that a computer is living with rights, possibly the computer organic intelligence would solve that ;) Actually it makes you wonder if we were somewhat created by a previous intelligent lifeform ourselves! Its all the wonders of science.
Sorry for the pointless comment, but that "cell" thing is just hilarious, haha:D!
Also, what do you mean by your last sentence, if you don't mind me asking? Sorry for being dense, but I'm not really sure what you're getting at.:S
--
Dad
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Oh I was implying that religion is a cancer and 'seemed' to go along with things that don't require any respect or rights. To tell you the truth it could be omitted, it has little to do with topic, except as a lead on from the fish analogy (fish being the common recognized symbol of Christianity).