Biased Humanities Professor

[WingedOx]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not lol.

Not at all. Machines have a far greater standardization of output than any human is capable of, but that doesn't mean they don't produce errors.

 

[LoveBeingHuman:)]

Not at all. Machines have a far greater standardization of output than any human is capable of, but that doesn't mean they don't produce errors.

Mechanical error almost always traces back to human error. A code that doesn’t run correctly doesn’t mean that the system ran the code wrong. It means that the code itself is wrong. Who wrote the code? A human.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Mechanical error almost always traces back to human error. A code that doesn’t run correctly doesn’t mean that the system ran the code wrong. It means that the code itself is wrong. Who wrote the code? A human.

That’s recursive. Of course all machines are built by humans or by machines that were built by humans. That in no way implies that machines are somehow perfect if not for human imperfections.

 

[LoveBeingHuman:)]

That’s recursive. Of course all machines are built by humans or by machines that were built by humans. That in no way implies that machines are somehow perfect if not for human imperfections.

Why not?

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Why not?

Because logic?

 

[freedoctor17]

Not to continue derailing the thread but i think both of you have a point. Sure the machines aren't perfect because humans are making them and we're not perfect but by that logic machines will never be perfect either. So machines could be perfect if there was a perfect person to build the perfect machine but to build a perfect machine they'd need perfect materials and a perfect world where things like friction didn't exist since that pretty much makes most machines imperfect but now I might be confusing perfection with efficiency though you'd think a perfect machine would have 100% efficiency so maybe they go hand in hand and I guess we can conclude that no one is perfect and machines aren't perfect and the world isn't perfect and perfect can mean different things to different people and this is all subjective and I don't think I've ever used perfect so much in one sentence and this is probably the longest run on sentence I've ever written and if I write all my essays this way they'll probably be perfect and get me into a perfect med school and then I'll be perfect and I can come back and properly answer this question after building a machine and testing its perfection.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Not to continue derailing the thread but i think both of you have a point. Sure the machines aren't perfect because humans are making them and we're not perfect but by that logic machines will never be perfect either. So machines could be perfect if there was a perfect person to build the perfect machine but to build a perfect machine they'd need perfect materials and a perfect world where things like friction didn't exist since that pretty much makes most machines imperfect but now I might be confusing perfection with efficiency though you'd think a perfect machine would have 100% efficiency so maybe they go hand in hand and I guess we can conclude that no one is perfect and machines aren't perfect and the world isn't perfect and perfect can mean different things to different people and this is all subjective and I don't think I've ever used perfect so much in one sentence and this is probably the longest run on sentence I've ever written and if I write all my essays this way they'll probably be perfect and get me into a perfect med school and then I'll be perfect and I can come back and properly answer this question after building a machine and testing its perfection.

No machine will ever work with perfect efficiency and not experience wear and tear, regardless of how perfect the builder is. That’s physics.

 

[freedoctor17]

No machine will ever work with perfect efficiency and not experience wear and tear, regardless of how perfect the builder is. That’s physics.

Personally I believe in an all powerful God so if he wanted to "build" a perfect machine he could but other than that religious aspect I agree. I just got too into my huge rambling monologue over using the word perfect.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Personally I believe in an all powerful God so if he wanted to "build" a perfect machine he could but other than that religious aspect I agree. I just got too into my huge rambling monologue over using the word perfect.

I’m a Christian Jew, so obviously I do too. But man isn’t God, so no machine we build will be exempt from the laws of physics, no matter how perfect it is at its conception. But that doesn’t somehow imply machines are perfect.

 

[LizzyM]

Speaking of "perfect", back before grade inflation, the saying used to be "A is for God..." ergo mere mortals didn't get A's.

 

[Ehhhwhatsup]

What about a sentient machine that builds other machines?

 

[WingedOx]

What about a sentient machine that builds other machines?

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

What about a sentient machine that builds other machines?

Everything breaks down.

 

[JohnJacobJungler]

What about a sentient machine that builds other machines?

If such a machine is sentient and able to reproduce itself, is it then alive?