If 98% of the atoms in our body are replaced in just 1 year, what are we?

[Trading]

There is enough evidence to convince the most stubborn theist (including the pope) that we descend from things much worst than monkeys.

Of course, not even the most compelling evidence would convince people that simple don't want to be convinced, no matter what.

Like someone said, it is hard to reason with someone who hasn't arrived at his conclusions through reason. Although he is technically right. We didn't descend from monkeys. More like from apes.

I like that quote too, it's from Jonathan Swift, the writer of Gulliver.

Of course, it can be interpreted also on a violent way. If he doesn't want to listen to reason, let's force him to obey. But I prefer to just read it as a let's give up and stop wasting time.

[1715183215]

1715183215

[1715183215]

1715183215

[EUROPEANTURK]

Saying the machine will be a exact clone of us, a perfect copy, means to say that it won't be the original, us. But since you agree that it would be a clone and would be an autonomous individual you have to agree it wouldn't be us, but a copy.

The clone would have a right to your property? Better be glad you don't have an unknown identity twin (unless you dismissed the conclusion because of some tiny differences, like fingerprints) somewhere or it seems you would agree he would have a right to your property.

machine will never be like us. they're not able to have our intelligent, mind and nature system of our body. the smartest person itself is not capable of doing such thing. even they can create smart human machines, those machines aren't the clone or a copy because the machines just have the same shape of our body, but the materials of our body are extremely different.

exactly agreed..  machines will never replace humans.. becauses machines will never have emotions like anger, love, jealosy etc.. for that reason , humans will always be the best creature living on earth for sure..

[criptix]

Saying the machine will be a exact clone of us, a perfect copy, means to say that it won't be the original, us. But since you agree that it would be a clone and would be an autonomous individual you have to agree it wouldn't be us, but a copy.

The clone would have a right to your property? Better be glad you don't have an unknown identity twin (unless you dismissed the conclusion because of some tiny differences, like fingerprints) somewhere or it seems you would agree he would have a right to your property.

machine will never be like us. they're not able to have our intelligent, mind and nature system of our body. the smartest person itself is not capable of doing such thing. even they can create smart human machines, those machines aren't the clone or a copy because the machines just have the same shape of our body, but the materials of our body are extremely different.

exactly agreed..  machines will never replace humans.. becauses machines will never have emotions like anger, love, jealosy etc.. for that reason , humans will always be the best creature living on earth for sure..

A human is just a biological machine

[Tzupy]

"What am I?" is a wrong question. The right question is "What am I not?".

[Trading]

It's in our nature: if we don't like what we are, our imagination will make us something different: with an immortal soul, with a heaven waiting for us, with an invisible omniscient and omnipotent friend (I wouldn't call friend an invisible being that says if you don't believe me and love me back, I'll send you, your children, your grand children, your great-grand children and also their children to a place where you all shall be burned alive forever and ever), etc.

[BADecker]

What is even more astounding is, the substance of the electrons is being replaced constantly as they move in their orbits around their atoms.

[xhomerx10]

"What am I?" is a wrong question. The right question is "What am I not?".

 If we were defined by what we are not, the possibilities would be infinte.  It is easier to define what we are.

[Tzupy]

"What am I?" is a wrong question. The right question is "What am I not?".

 If we were defined by what we are not, the possibilities would be infinte.  It is easier to define what we are.

I didn't say "we were defined by what we are not", I just said that trying to define what we are leads nowhere.
It's wiser to analyze and find out what we are not. And the possibilities are not infinite, they are just bodily and mental phenomena.

[C10H15N]

We are the children of stars.

[xhomerx10]

"What am I?" is a wrong question. The right question is "What am I not?".

 If we were defined by what we are not, the possibilities would be infinte.  It is easier to define what we are.

I didn't say "we were defined by what we are not", I just said that trying to define what we are leads nowhere.
It's wiser to analyze and find out what we are not. And the possibilities are not infinite, they are just bodily and mental phenomena.

 Yes I know!  That's how a discussion works.  I quoted you and then I said something in reply to what you said.  Clearly, you didn't say what I said; I said what I said.  I didn't say what you said; you said what you said! I am me.  I am not you.  <-- see what I did there?

"What am I?" is the right question.  "What am I not?" would take much longer to attempt to answer and you would NEVER be understood. 

By the way, I am not mean-spirited.

[BADecker]

We are the children of stars.

The stars are the nannies of the universe.   

[BADecker]

"What am I?" is a wrong question. The right question is "What am I not?".

 If we were defined by what we are not, the possibilities would be infinte.  It is easier to define what we are.

I didn't say "we were defined by what we are not", I just said that trying to define what we are leads nowhere.
It's wiser to analyze and find out what we are not. And the possibilities are not infinite, they are just bodily and mental phenomena.

 Yes I know!  That's how a discussion works.  I quoted you and then I said something in reply to what you said.  Clearly, you didn't say what I said; I said what I said.  I didn't say what you said; you said what you said! I am me.  I am not you.  <-- see what I did there?

"What am I?" is the right question.  "What am I not?" would take much longer to attempt to answer and you would NEVER be understood. 

By the way, I am not mean-spirited.

I think a person can be self-centered without being mean-spirited.   

[xhomerx10]

"What am I?" is a wrong question. The right question is "What am I not?".

 If we were defined by what we are not, the possibilities would be infinte.  It is easier to define what we are.

I didn't say "we were defined by what we are not", I just said that trying to define what we are leads nowhere.
It's wiser to analyze and find out what we are not. And the possibilities are not infinite, they are just bodily and mental phenomena.

 Yes I know!  That's how a discussion works.  I quoted you and then I said something in reply to what you said.  Clearly, you didn't say what I said; I said what I said.  I didn't say what you said; you said what you said! I am me.  I am not you.  <-- see what I did there?

"What am I?" is the right question.  "What am I not?" would take much longer to attempt to answer and you would NEVER be understood. 

By the way, I am not mean-spirited.

I think a person can be self-centered without being mean-spirited.   

 I may be argumentative but I am not self-centered. 

[C10H15N]

We are the children of stars.

The stars are the nannies of the universe.   

They are certainly the creators - taking elemental hydrogen and fusing it up the periodic table to uranium.

[Tzupy]

"What am I?" is a wrong question. The right question is "What am I not?".

 If we were defined by what we are not, the possibilities would be infinte.  It is easier to define what we are.

I didn't say "we were defined by what we are not", I just said that trying to define what we are leads nowhere.
It's wiser to analyze and find out what we are not. And the possibilities are not infinite, they are just bodily and mental phenomena.

 Yes I know!  That's how a discussion works.  I quoted you and then I said something in reply to what you said.  Clearly, you didn't say what I said; I said what I said.  I didn't say what you said; you said what you said! I am me.  I am not you.  <-- see what I did there?

"What am I?" is the right question.  "What am I not?" would take much longer to attempt to answer and you would NEVER be understood. 

By the way, I am not mean-spirited.

It does take a long time to find the answers to the question "What am I not?", but if you don't try, you'll never get the answer (you have to discover the answer yourself).
To get an idea what I'm talking about, see Vipassana. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassan%C4%81

[xhomerx10]

"What am I?" is a wrong question. The right question is "What am I not?".

 If we were defined by what we are not, the possibilities would be infinte.  It is easier to define what we are.

I didn't say "we were defined by what we are not", I just said that trying to define what we are leads nowhere.
It's wiser to analyze and find out what we are not. And the possibilities are not infinite, they are just bodily and mental phenomena.

 Yes I know!  That's how a discussion works.  I quoted you and then I said something in reply to what you said.  Clearly, you didn't say what I said; I said what I said.  I didn't say what you said; you said what you said! I am me.  I am not you.  <-- see what I did there?

"What am I?" is the right question.  "What am I not?" would take much longer to attempt to answer and you would NEVER be understood. 

By the way, I am not mean-spirited.

It does take a long time to find the answers to the question "What am I not?", but if you don't try, you'll never get the answer (you have to discover the answer yourself).
To get an idea what I'm talking about, see Vipassana. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassan%C4%81

 Interesting read but I think it would take me longer to attain enlightenment through Vipassana nana than to consider all the things I am not.  Maybe I'll take it up when I retire

[Trading]

The first generation of stars were rather the corps that fertilized life. The heavy elements that they created, that are necessary to form planets and our bodies, only were expelled to space with their destruction.

It's like having the heart of someone and calling him daddy.

Forget Jesus, it was the stars that had to die for us to live (Lawrence Krauss).

Anyway, saying romantically that we are made of "star dust", like if that was something special, forgets that the most banal stone is also "star dust".

[Trading]

An artificial intelligent assistant teacher gave support to about 300 students of an AI course for weeks on the course forum without any of them being able to figure out that "she" wasn't human.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160509101930.htm

"She" was based on the IBM's Watson platform (yes, the one that won Jeopardy):

http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/ibmwatson/what-is-watson.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_(computer)

We are not talking about basic low paid jobs. These A.I.'s are going to be serious competition to many people.

Of course, they are still way far from us or for being able to help us understanding our own brains.

[squatz1]

Our souls, memories, and thiughts are still the same

[vokain]

A river.

δὶς ἐς τὸν αὐτὸν πoταμὸν oὐκ ἂν ἐμβαίης