Originally posted by g0dhims3lf
reply to post by ScientificUAPer
Ok in that logic what if it is a cycle and machines created us?
That's not my logic, but maybe that kind of logic is influencing your choice of words?
If that logic is correct, yes, then we are biological machines. But I never, ever saw any evidence of that. And imo. it seems as if many people
underestimate the complexity of life. Eventually, you don't 'build' life, you breed it, or control/manipulate mutations from generation
to generation, you don't build life, like you build a machine. Of course, I'm basing that on our knowledge, but I can much better imagine e.g. a cell
being a result of perpetual but very long-running evolutionary processes. There are too many things that have to work together at micro-level, I don't
think the tooling is possible
Also, in a hypothetical scenario, if we say that we are 'built' by others, it only pushes the ultimate question one link further: What created the
beings that created the human 'machines'? So you gain nothing from it, if you're trying to solve the ultimate equations.
Eventually, it leads to the same impossible questions, and hence I consider life and the universe an inherent mystery.
The origins and true nature of machines are not mysterious in the slightest, they are a totally other concept.
We are a result of evolution yes, I agree, but the ultimate origins is a mystery greater than even that, or a machine shop shomewhere in the galaxy.
And while I find such a shop most unlikely, eventually someone had to build it first, if it existed! And that would be evolution, or God, or both,
which ever way you see it
So, on that basis, I'd say the odds are much greater that we are the direct
result of the origins of life, that is more likely than someone
else having to build us, also!
edit on 17-10-2012 by ScientificUAPer because: (no reason given)