Discussion Is it valid to describe a human (or any animal) as a highly sophisticated machine?

[LittleMonkey]

My thinking is that while our brains are sophisticated enough to produce such intriguing phenomena as consciousness and metacognition, ultimately everything is mundane and operates under strict laws of cause and effect, and each human is a remarkable piece of organic machinery reacting to outside stimuli in an impressive host of different ways. Another way to describe a human would be "a machine capable of producing machines". How valid is all this?

 

[obligatoryshackles]

It's certainly a valid belief. Whether or not it's true is hard to verify even if all evidence points toward it being the case.

But be careful about how you arrived at this conclusion. This is just another cog turning and how you respond to it may just be yet another cog turning in response, but, for example, if this is coming from a place of trying to absolve yourself from all responsibility, trying to allow yourself to fall into inaction, then don't heed that instinct. If it came from a place of observation and critical thought, then consider what this ultimately means to you.

Even if we are perfectly deterministic machines, it does not chance the fact that "we" are also observers who see everything that happens from that machine's point of view.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

The concept of animals being viewed as just machines was first brought up by Rene Descartes, I think. He theorized that animal bodies were just complex machines. After learning about this I started referring to humans and living organisms in my head as biological machines, but I'm honestly not sure I even really believe this...

On one hand, the activity of machines is something that is fully determined. A toaster toasts things, an oven bakes things, a watch tells you the time. Machines are built with a particular function in mind and that they cannot deviate from. Organisms can adapt to their environment and how their bodies function can change through as a of something like changes to their life style. If I start doing yoga everyday my body will slowly adapt to it and become more flexible. If I decided that I wanted to be stronger then I can exercise to build muscle mass. The only thing something like a watch can do is keep on telling you the time. It cannot change or adapt, it can only serve it's one purpose, which is telling you the time. An organism cannot be reduced down to one particular function. Along with that, if an organism gets hurt then their body will repair itself. If a machine ends up breaking or malfunctioning, even if it's minor, it typically will require the an external source to fix it.

Dr. Dan Nicholson, a molecular biologist with a PhD in philosophy, talks about how organisms and machines can be distinguished by looking at intrinsic vs extrinsic purpose. A machine is extrinstincally purposive, meaning that it works towards a goal that is external from itself. It doesn't and cannot serve it's own interests, instead serving the interests of its creator or users. Organisms are intrinsically purposive, meaning that they are "self-organizing, self-producing, self-maintaining, and self-regenerating systems". I should note that I only skimmed through the interview out of laziness, so there's definitely more to it than just that, but anyway...

Still, sometimes I can't help but wonder if our species will one day get to a point where we find ways to make machines so advanced that the line between organism and machine becomes a complete blur.

As to whether or not it's valid to describe humans and other organisms as being just "highly sophisticated machines", I guess I lean a bit more on the no side, but I'm overall not sure. I have a tiny brain, so everything is confusing for me.

 

[LittleMonkey]

The only thing something like a watch can do is keep on telling you the time. It cannot change or adapt, it can only serve it's one purpose, which is telling you the time. An organism cannot be reduced down to one particular function. Along with that, if an organism gets hurt then their body will repair itself. If a machine ends up breaking or malfunctioning, even if it's minor, it typically will require the an external source to fix it.

1. Watch is a relatively simple mechanism, so yes, the results of its labor are plain and it cannot repair itself.
2. I'm not a biologist, but I'm not so sure that you really cannot reduce an organism to one particular function. Maybe this function is consumption and transformation of energy? Couple that function with an ever-changing environment and you get sentient, sapient mechanisms capable of figuring out the principles behind their existence.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

1. Watch is a relatively simple mechanism, so yes, the results of its labor are plain and it cannot repair itself.
2. I'm not a biologist, but I'm not so sure that you really cannot reduce an organism to one particular function. Maybe this function is consumption and transformation of energy? Couple that function with an ever-changing environment and you get sentient, sapient mechanisms capable of figuring out the principles behind their existence.

Bring reduced down to a particular function/set of particular functions refers to the fact that machines are specifically made with a task/set of tasks in mind to perform. They can only do said task and that's it. They do not have any influence over the activities of their parts. An organism cannot be reduced down to a particular function refers to the fact that organisms aren't reduced to activities based on their body parts. For example, someone who decides to studies ballet will develop hypertrophy in certain areas of their muscles over time. The point is that our bodies ability to adapt and change, and unlike a machine, our behaviours cannot be reduced down to a particular function based on our parts. Our activities aren't fully determined based on how our parts are arranged. We have control over the activities of our body parts.

I'm sorry if this is still confusing. I am not very articulate. I probably should have used the word activity to, instead of function, since I think it would make what I'm trying to get across a bit easier to understand.

Also, the consumption and transformation of energy is something that is done to keep one alive. It's not a particular task that is specifically performed for the purpose of others and the activities of organisms can't really be reduced down to just the consumption and transformation of energy alone. Many organisms can go on for long periods of time without the need for food. Tardigrades, for example, can go up to 30 years without food. As a result, consumption for the sake of transforming what they have consumed into energy isn't a particular activity that many organisms can be reduced down to since this is something they are able to go long periods of time without being concerned about. Along with that, organisms can also defy this, like in the case of those who suffer from anorexia nervosa and who refuse to consume food, leaving their bodies with little energy to function. A machine cannot go against the task it was meant to perform just because it wants to, but some organisms can.

 

[sserafim]

Humans are biological machines

 

[A_good_username]

I think humans are basically machines but we aren't really sophisticated.I think we are just trashy spontaneous meat machines.

 

[red24]

The human brain is able to understand itself. More than this, is able to create a reality in which itself then exists. Is more than a paradox, is beyond comprehension. If a machine can do this, I want that machine. I will sell it and be rich and go to Cuba to listen sad love songs and drink something they have there, like rum.

 

[vitbar]

It's worth taking care when using analogies like this.

 

[pyx]

we cannot map out our internal representations since apprehension of the structure of our own minds requires a semantic step i.e some sentential convention. concession of the state-of-affairs is outcome dependent, -- the fact that we have the capacity to think of other conscious beings [which would entail that there is some quality of other minds which lends credence to other-minds -- a fact which Nagel referred to when speaking of referential pathways. i cannot conceive of what it would be like to have 20/1 vision, though i can logically apprehend the notion, and indeed i could try to picture it in my mind. this requires a conception of ones own thought-process in procuring the thought. but i cannot have certainty that that internal representation is in any way accurate to what it would actually be like. like trying to coordinate each individual contraction of my muscles; it's not possible, though i can operate under the delusion that it is.
the same goes, generally, with consciousness, or more generally the structure of consciousness -- how the mind perceives itself. the fact that we are, however, conscious beings means that the very notion becomes a utile theoretical concept; what Sellars called the 'manifest image' as opposed to the 'scientific image.' i think the mechanistic notion derives from a logical error. like a drunkard pretending to be sober, neglecting the slurring of his words.

 

[Ambivalent1]

The selfish gene by Richard Dawkins

 

[DarkRange55]

I doubt that he was the first, but he did push the idea.
It really depends on how broadly one interprets "machine".

Xenobot - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org