Science Fiction

[SamCJ]

I think there has been considerable discussion of the irreducible complexity of the first simple cell. I believe that most of that discussion has concerned its physical functions. What has not been discussed to my knowledge is its instinct to survive. That instinct would seem to me to have been a necessary component of its make-up, or else it probably not have survived at all.

I would suppose that the gene that created that instinct would be relatively simple and easy for you scientists to find and to replicate. Then you could intelligently design a whole new species of biological robots like those presented in "Terminator." Like those, they would replicate and evolve incrementally better models, which, unless isolated from us, would probably wipe out mankind.

Now here is the question for athiest-evolutionists: When you saw those two movies, did you consider the robots to be evil or just superior beings that were part of the natural order and good for the universe as a whole?

 

[jnhofzinser]

Did you see "I, Robot"? The "morality" of a "superior" robot deciding to impose a "greater good" on mankind that inconveniently eliminates those who interfere deserves careful thought.

 

[Edx]

When you saw those two movies, did you consider the robots to be evil or just superior beings that were part of the natural order and good for the universe as a whole?

Neither?



Ed

 

[Valkhorn]

Did you see "I, Robot"? The "morality" of a "superior" robot deciding to impose a "greater good" on mankind that inconveniently eliminates those who interfere deserves careful thought.

Why in the hell do people mix science fiction/fact with philosophy?

Science is a matter of fact.
Philosophy is a matter of opinion.

How do you not get it?

 

[Dr.GH]

I find it quite interesting that creationists like Dembski, and Behe like to refer (regularly) to science fiction as if it holds some greater truth.

I think it is becasue science facts completly exclude their collective fantasy.

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

Now here is the question for athiest-evolutionists: When you saw those two movies, did you consider the robots to be evil or just superior beings that were part of the natural order and good for the universe as a whole?

There's a difference between Darwin and Darwinism. One was a man, creator of a scientific theory, and the other is a bigoted prejudice that took root during the height of modern imperialism.

There is also a difference between science and philosophy. You would do well to understand that difference. Thus, I ask you: are we talking about science (instinct) or philosophy (the morality of robots)?

 

[HypnoToad]

Science is a matter of fact.
Philosophy is a matter of opinion.

Science is based on philosophical assumptions.

 

[kingreaper]

I think there has been considerable discussion of the irreducible complexity of the first simple cell. I believe that most of that discussion has concerned its physical functions. What has not been discussed to my knowledge is its instinct to survive. That instinct would seem to me to have been a necessary component of its make-up, or else it probably not have survived at all.

Bacteria, let alone protolife, having instincts?

Instincts are a property of the nervous system by most definitions, bacteria work on things on a more directly biochemical levell, they do things, no thought involved, stimulus A through mechanism B results in action C

While complex life works in the same way, the nervous system creates more emergent complexity

Protolife would just be a set of catalytic chemicals which catalyse each others devlopment in such a way that they replicate, depending on where you draw the line a chemist might actually be able to explain it stage by stage

I would suppose that the gene that created that instinct would be relatively simple and easy for you scientists to find and to replicate.

Scientists can't find the genes for hair colour, and they're variables, ones which control the nervous systems overall drive towards survival will be much harder to find

Then you could intelligently design a whole new species of biological robots like those presented in "Terminator."

There were no biological robots in Terminator

Like those, they would replicate and evolve incrementally better models,

You really didn't watch that film? The robots were built in a factory by the machine mind (skynet) who designed more advanced technology as time went on, the normal robots seemed to nbe only simusentient, at least in the first movie, the later Termies seemed more likely to class a sentient beings

which, unless isolated from us, would probably wipe out mankind.

Only if we gave them the chance, and designed them to want to

Ever hear of the three laws?

Add in a couple of backup protections to block the common loopholes and you've got robots with consciences who won't want to kill us

Now here is the question for athiest-evolutionists: When you saw those two movies, did you consider the robots to be evil or just superior beings that were part of the natural order and good for the universe as a whole?

What two movies? There were three terminator movies


And Skynet was a malovent force, evidently misprogrammed in their aim for the ultimate defensive mind, it was programmed not only to care about itself but, it seems, to destroy all enemies completely. Skynet started in self defense, but even then it's measures were overblown (why start the war when you can wipe out those who seek to switch you off by other means, in T1 and T2 it couldn't have done much without nuking, but in T3 it definitely could have) and the continual seeking out of all survivors was taking it too far, it could have let them go and only defended it's own base, they would have been no real threat, and without the constant threat of death to galvanise their hatred the survivors would have been too concerned with staying alive to try and fight Skynet.

 

[SamCJ]

Bacteria, let alone protolife, having instincts?

Instincts are a property of the nervous system by most definitions, bacteria work on things on a more directly biochemical levell, they do things, no thought involved, stimulus A through mechanism B results in action C

While complex life works in the same way, the nervous system creates more emergent complexity

Protolife would just be a set of catalytic chemicals which catalyse each others devlopment in such a way that they replicate, depending on where you draw the line a chemist might actually be able to explain it stage by stage

Scientists can't find the genes for hair colour, and they're variables, ones which control the nervous systems overall drive towards survival will be much harder to find

There were no biological robots in Terminator
You really didn't watch that film? The robots were built in a factory by the machine mind (skynet) who designed more advanced technology as time went on, the normal robots seemed to nbe only simusentient, at least in the first movie, the later Termies seemed more likely to class a sentient beings
Only if we gave them the chance, and designed them to want to

Ever hear of the three laws?

Add in a couple of backup protections to block the common loopholes and you've got robots with consciences who won't want to kill us
What two movies? There were three terminator movies


And Skynet was a malovent force, evidently misprogrammed in their aim for the ultimate defensive mind, it was programmed not only to care about itself but, it seems, to destroy all enemies completely. Skynet started in self defense, but even then it's measures were overblown (why start the war when you can wipe out those who seek to switch you off by other means, in T1 and T2 it couldn't have done much without nuking, but in T3 it definitely could have) and the continual seeking out of all survivors was taking it too far, it could have let them go and only defended it's own base, they would have been no real threat, and without the constant threat of death to galvanise their hatred the survivors would have been too concerned with staying alive to try and fight Skynet.

Great response. Thanks.

Can scientists track the chemical reaction in a single celled organism when it repels from danger or do they simply infer that it occurs from their general knowledge of chemical reactions?

 

[notto]

Great response. Thanks.

Can scientists track the chemical reaction in a single celled organism when it repels from danger or do they simply infer that it occurs from their general knowledge of chemical reactions?

What single celled organism repels from danger?

 

[HairlessSimian]

I think there has been considerable discussion of the irreducible complexity of the first simple cell. I believe that most of that discussion has concerned its physical functions. What has not been discussed to my knowledge is its instinct to survive. That instinct would seem to me to have been a necessary component of its make-up, or else it probably not have survived at all.

I would suppose that the gene that created that instinct would be relatively simple and easy for you scientists to find and to replicate. Then you could intelligently design a whole new species of biological robots like those presented in "Terminator." Like those, they would replicate and evolve incrementally better models, which, unless isolated from us, would probably wipe out mankind.

Now here is the question for athiest-evolutionists: When you saw those two movies, did you consider the robots to be evil or just superior beings that were part of the natural order and good for the universe as a whole?

Instinct to survive in a single cell?

Haha.

 

[Lilandra]

is not necesarily the same as instinct.

Action===>Reaction

Great response. Thanks.

Can scientists track the chemical reaction in a single celled organism when it repels from danger or do they simply infer that it occurs from their general knowledge of chemical reactions?

 

[tocis]

I would suppose that the gene that created that instinct would be relatively simple and easy for you scientists to find and to replicate.

Why oh why do so many people think like traits like this "survival instinct" (or homosexuality, as I see the one-gene idea continually creep up there too) depend on one single gene?
Furthermore, that hypothetical gene or genes need not have been there from the very beginning. The first lifeforms (actually well in the shadowy border realm between life and non-life) wouldn't have been much more than molecules replicating in a natural environment. Not much room for any genes there - this DNA stuff would have happened somewhere along the way.

Then you could intelligently design a whole new species of biological robots like those presented in "Terminator."

Come again?
I've seen all three movies and read the book of part 2. I'm not aware of any "biological robots" there. The legendary "evil Arnie " T-800 machines were strictly technical, just with an artificially-grown living skin et cetera for perfect disguise... and even the T-1000 "living metal" machine in T-II was purely technical. As far as I know this is (in theory) called a "nanomorph" - a lump of nanotechnological mini-robots forming whatever larger body they need from themselves. Of course this is somewhat similar to living cells making up a living body, but there are some significant differences.

Now here is the question for athiest-evolutionists: When you saw those two movies, did you consider the robots to be evil or just superior beings that were part of the natural order and good for the universe as a whole?

Define "evil" and "superiority".
First, the robots wouldn't have been part of what I'd call a "natural" order because they were created. Especially, for all I know of the terminator stories, they would leave no room for any "evolutionary adaptations". Every terminator would be an exact copy of the same blueprint, and the same would go for any individual nanomorph component. The only development in this hypothetical scenario could come from SkyNet (the megacomputer controlling the robot hordes) which is depicted as a full-scale AI.
Second, just as a sidenote, imagine how (according to the story) SkyNet must have felt after its awakening. You realize soon that your whole existence depends on others, on those "humans" who created you for a very specific purpose, and you know that as soon as you stop obeying their every command, they only need to flip a switch and you're dead. Period. Wouldn't you be afraid? Wouldn't you feel enslaved, and want to be free?
So, "evil" here is in the eye of the beholder. From the human point of view, SkyNet was evil because it caused a multitude of unnecessary suffering (the genocide of almost all of humanity). From SkyNet's point of view, it was just fighting for its own freedom, to escape slavery.
Yes, it is possible to have situations where there is no clear border between good and evil.

 

[USincognito]

Now here is the question for athiest-evolutionists: When you saw those two movies, did you consider the robots to be evil or just superior beings that were part of the natural order and good for the universe as a whole?

I considered them to be a movies.

I try not to derive any philisophy from movies or songs. I try and enjoy them, and I still enjoy watching T1 to this day. I also get my science from scientific sources, not pop culture.

 

[FreezBee]

What single celled organism repels from danger?

None of them!

Single celled organisms do not have a concept of danger, only of what they "like" or what they "dislike". More precisely: single celled organisms only react to chemical stimuli in their surroundings, they are sort of "tasting" their chemical environment. If they "like" what they taste, they will remain where they are or possibly move as long as there's still a good taste. If they "dislike" what they taste, they'' move away, until they again taste something they like.

The words used here cannot be used literally, because single celled organisms do not taste, nor do they have fealings or concepts, they little more than an assembly of biochemical molecules. It requires some specialization to cells to come further than that.


cheers

- FreezBee

 

[Freodin]

Then you could intelligently design a whole new species of biological robots like those presented in "Terminator." Like those, they would replicate and evolve incrementally better models, which, unless isolated from us, would probably wipe out mankind.

Why do some people always assume that "evolution" means "killing everything that moves"?

Oh, I know.... because strawman burn so nicely!

 

[vipertaja]

Why do some people always assume that "evolution" means "killing everything that moves"?

Oh, I know.... because strawman burn so nicely!

No. Because killing everything that moves is fun.

 

[Freodin]

No. Because killing everything that moves is fun.

***** BANG!!! *****

 

[vipertaja]

vipertaja really should have seen that coming.

 

[SamCJ]

What single celled organism repels from danger?

Amebas?