In this week’s Science Express (www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1190719), they describe the stepwise creation of a bacterial chromosome and the successful transfer of it into a bacterium, where it replaced the native DNA. Powered by the synthetic genome, that microbial cell began replicating and making a new set of proteins.
I will remind you of what my actual claim was:
That said, I do believe if a group of extraterrestrial biologists arrived on earth and started collecting examples of life to take to their home planet to research, they might not be able to determine that the synthetic organism constructed by Venter’s group was designed as opposed to any other organisms they collected.
So that kind of shoots your whole argument down, doesn’t it? These extraterrestrial biologists would describe Venter’s bacteria as natural, whereas if they also collected human artifacts like watches, they would consider these to be designed.
Uh, yeah. If I saw something on a distant planet that looked in every way exactly like a robot, I would conclude it was a robot. Just as, if I saw something that looked exactly like watch, I would call it a “watch.”
great. so since a walking creature is similar to a walking robot (or even identical if we will made a robot that is identical to a creature) then why not consider it to be a kind of a robot?
You think the way something looks is a scientific proof or conclusive evidence.
It isn’t. It’s merely an indication… something that your personal Faith can use to anchor itself.
If the way something looks were conclusive, then looking at a living creature should convince you it is NOT a kind of robot… it doesn’t look or act like a robot.
You seem to think that “what something looks like” … or what it “seems like” is a definitive source of information. It isn’t.
"Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief. Much debate in epistemology centers on four areas:
(3) the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and
(4) the criteria for knowledge and justification. Epistemology addresses such questions as: “What makes justified beliefs justified?”,[3] “What does it mean to say that we know something?”,[4]and fundamentally “How do we know that we know?”[5]
A “walking creature”, like a human being or a cat or a giraffe is decidedly NOT a robot. A robot is a non-living machine that is created by a human being. Human beings, cats and giraffes do not qualify.
This is so obvious, I do not even know why we are discussing it.
so that is you definition of a robot? what “non-living” means? something that cant replicate itself? or something that is made from organic components or what? please be specific.
The definition of “living” is going to get us into deep waters, and I don’t think it will in the end prove illuminating or productive.
If we can agree that a human being or a dog or a fruitfly or a tree or an E. coli bacteria are all alive, and a watch isn’t, I think that will suffiice for our discussion. Do you disagree with any of that?
ok. so a ccording to your definition from wiki a robot is a machine. and a machine is something that was build by man. so according to this definition if we will see something that is identical to a robot evolve by a natural process- we cant call it a robot since it was not made by man. so basically we are claiming that something that is identical to a robot isnt a robot. see why definitions are problematic?
If it was not made by man, it is not identical to a robot, because a robot is made by man. So your statement is meaningless. It’s like saying “If we see a square that does not have four sides, we can’t call it a square.”