Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> QUOTE (from “King’s English”): “[i][b]A truly autonomous car would decide on destination and route as well as control within the lanes. An automated car would follow orders about destination and route, and may only adopt some lane-keeping or car-following guidance[/b].[/i]” (dhw's bold)
> "[i]Nevertheless, I do not believe these differences can be preserved linguistically, even within the profession, the broad misuse and confusion will drown small differences of meaning.[/i]"
> 
> DAVID: [i]Our real battle is about cells and how they work, as you note. My analogy fits my side.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]Thank you for these two clarifications, which to some extent explain the confusion. Since the motor industry has its own special jargon, I take back my vehement disapproval of your use of language. However, what may be “small differences” in the motor industry are colossal differences in the context of our discussion: either cells follow instructions (= automated) or they make their own decisions (autonomous).The one is the exact opposite of the other. I suggest we scrap the analogy![/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]I've made my point and you yours. They can't think but can communicate with molecules. The only message a molecule can bring is its function, so when it arrives at a new cell it says use me if you wish. The recipient cell recognizes the useful molecule and has an onboard molecule react with it. All rapidly automatic, occurring in millionths of a second, a trillion of times in the body simultaneously, which creates an energy need and life's homeostasis. And the energy arrives by eating something. dhw's wishful God must produce a pacifistic life form. That means theoretically starting with plants, not animals. I leave it to dhw to give us a followup scenario to reach humans as history shows.[/i]
> 
> For some reason, you have switched the focus from the distinction between automatic and autonomous to God’s choice of war over peace. Nobody would ever dispute that life needs energy. Do you consider it was beyond the powers of your all-powerful God to design plants before animals? In any case, the exact order of their respective evolutions doesn’t seem to be clear, judging by some of the websites I’ve consulted.