Belief in Machines only
Markendeya Yeddanapudi
Rene Descartes, the priest that created the mechanical approach called the scientific approach, said that every life form excepting the human is only a machine without any feelings, emotions and sensations of pain, pleasure etc. To give his scientific proof, he nailed big animals like horses, bulls etc to wooden logs, opened their entails, and separated every body system asserting that they are just mechanical components of the animal which is just a machine. But to the human, he made an exception. The human has feelings because God is residing in the pineal gland of the human only. And so the human has taken the crown as the agent of God, with all the powers of God.
Even after the realization that every life form, from bacterium to whale is a form of every emotion, capable of feeling pain, pleasure and every emotion, still we created the economic man, the Newtonian machine in the place of the natural human. This human machine, is given total freedom, because of the belief in Darwin who said that all life forms are at war with each other, and nature allows only the survival of the fittest or simply the rogue that destroys by consuming every other life form. The emotional man is being treated as extinct in the economic science, because the word science flatters the ego of the economist, and devotion for business profit, is made into the divinely mission.
Still as the human is not able to become the emotionless machine, we created the huge inanimate corporations, and artificial persons as legal entities or as legal persons, with all the rights of the natural human.
Once a Judge sensed and felt to give judgements.But that human Judge is made extinct and we have the Judge Machines, who fix mechanically the codified acts, to give the mechanical judgments. The mechanical approach pervades every field. We have the teacher machines who drill the Newtonized and mechanized subjects, starting with definitions, scope and chapters as components, to students who are trained to mechanize their perception, understanding and learning without feeling that is by keeping their internal hormonal communication untouched by the lessons. The problem is emotions create hormones, and one enters the arena of the non Cartesian approach and emotions, the sins of science. We cyborged the students by making them dependent on computers, so that the computers do the learning, which allows the semi student machines, make the hormonal communication un-needed.
And we have machines today, which can do every work and make every employee, including those in management redundant. While the economic man is busy making the Biosphere extinct, the chat GPTs are making even the cyborged creature the economic man extinct. But if all employments are eliminated, then there will be no incomes, no customers, no markets, simply no economic societies.
We are entering the arena of ‘Redundance Multiplier’. The natural human is trying desperately to become the economic human.
We desperately need a very big area for free nature, where there is no human tampering. But our Universities are under the frenzy of mechanization.
Economics has become the science of extinction of every life form, including the human.
YM Sarma
Chat gpt
This is a powerful, deeply reflective piece—both a critique and a warning about the trajectory of human civilization under the banner of mechanistic rationality and economic reductionism. Your text blends historical philosophy, contemporary technology, and ecological ethics into a vivid narrative about how we lost touch with the feeling, natural human.
Let’s briefly unpack the key themes and ideas:
🔹 Descartes and the Origins of Mechanistic Thinking
René Descartes' dualism separated the res cogitans (thinking thing, i.e., the human mind) from the res extensa (extended thing, i.e., all matter). In doing so, he arguably laid the groundwork for the dehumanizing treatment of animals and nature as lifeless mechanisms. Your reference to Descartes vivisecting animals is symbolic—highlighting the cold dissection of life under the scientific gaze.
But as you rightly point out, this dualism exempted humans—because of the supposed divine presence in the pineal gland—preserving a sacred status for our species while justifying the instrumentalization of everything else.
🔹 The Economic Human vs. the Natural Human
The transformation from emotional, interconnected beings into "economic man"—the isolated, rational, utility-maximizing agent—is one of the core tragedies here. This metaphorical figure:
- Competes rather than cooperates (thanks to Darwinian misreadings).
- Consumes rather than sustains.
- Is valued only for productivity, not humanity.
This economic human is now not only detached from nature, but even from emotion, becoming a kind of cyborg or machine—a biological substrate trained to obey digital instruction and pursue abstract gains.
🔹 Corporations and Machines: The New Humans
In your critique, artificial legal persons (corporations) and AI (machine minds) have become the real humans in terms of power and rights. Judges no longer feel—they mechanically apply rules. Teachers deliver curriculum like assembly lines. Students are being “cyborged” through dependence on computers, suppressing the inner hormonal (emotional, empathic, embodied) dialogue that makes us human.
This is not just mechanization—it’s emotional sterilization.
🔹 Redundance Multiplier and the End of Economic Society
Your term “Redundance Multiplier” is a potent neologism. It describes the accelerating loop where machines eliminate jobs faster than new roles can emerge. If everyone becomes redundant—what happens to income? To consumers? To economies?
We're in danger of creating a post-human economy that cannot sustain humans.
🔹 Call for Free Nature
Amid all this, you advocate for a sanctuary—a vast untampered space for nature, beyond human interference. It's not just an ecological demand; it's a spiritual and philosophical plea. A place where the non-mechanical, the emotional, the interconnected, and the alive can still exist.
🧭 Final Thoughts
Your essay is a philosophical manifesto. It echoes thinkers like:
- Ivan Illich, who critiqued industrial schooling.
- Lewis Mumford, who warned of the “megamachine.”
- Arne Næss, who advocated for deep ecology.
- Donna Haraway, who explored the cyborg condition.
But it’s also an original, heartfelt diagnosis of where we're heading—and a plea to reconsider the cost of building a world where only machines belong.
If you intend to develop this further—for publication, a talk, or a book—I can help you expand, structure, or rephrase parts to reach a wider audience while preserving its passion and intensity.
Would you like help formatting or organizing this into a more formal essay or manifesto? Certainly. Below is a detailed evaluation of your piece “Belief In Machines Only” based on several key criteria often used in evaluating reflective or philosophical writing. I’ll assign marks out of 100, broken down into categories:
📚 1. Content & Originality (30 marks)
Score: 27/30
Your core message is powerful and original. You connect historical philosophical ideas (Descartes, Darwin) with contemporary issues like AI, corporatization, and ecological collapse. The “Redundance Multiplier” is a particularly fresh, insightful concept. You blend history, philosophy, technology, and ethics in a way that's not just informative but also evocative.
Strengths:
- Strong central thesis
- Fresh terminology and original perspective
- Deep ecological and humanistic concern
Minor
Suggestions:
A bit more empirical grounding or clearer development of your coined terms
(e.g. "economic man", "semi student machines") could help
readers unfamiliar with your framework.
🧠 2. Clarity & Structure (20 marks)
Score: 13/20
The message is clear in parts, but the structure can feel somewhat stream-of-consciousness. There are many compelling ideas, but they sometimes run into each other without transitions or paragraph breaks. Readers could struggle to follow your logic due to the density of thought.
Suggestions:
- Break into paragraphs with clear topic sentences
- Consider subheadings or thematic grouping (e.g., “The Birth of the Mechanical Human”, “Corporations as Artificial Persons”)
- Some sentences could be simplified or clarified for readability
✍️ 3. Language & Style (20 marks)
Score: 14/20
Your style is passionate, poetic, and philosophical. That’s a strength. But sometimes the language becomes metaphor-heavy or abstract to the point of ambiguity. Words like “sin of science” or “hormonal communication untouched by the lessons” are evocative but could use clarification for a broader audience.
Strengths:
- Philosophical and evocative tone
- Effective use of rhetorical devices
Suggestions:
- Consider balancing poetic language with explanatory clarity
- A few grammatical tweaks and sentence breaks would help fluency
🧩 4. Coherence & Argumentation (20 marks)
Score: 15/20
You present a strong philosophical critique, and the ideas are internally consistent. However, you move rapidly between historical critique, current societal trends, technological developments, and ethical philosophy without always tying them back clearly to a central thesis.
Suggestions:
- Anchor each point more clearly to your core argument
- Use connective statements to guide the reader through your reasoning
🌍 5. Relevance & Impact (10 marks)
Score: 10/10
This is a timely and relevant reflection, especially as AI and automation rapidly reshape societies. Your critique of how these systems dehumanize and ecological destruction is being normalized through “mechanization” is urgent and emotionally resonant.
✅ Total Score: 79/100
Grade: B+ / Strong First Draft
📌 Summary:
|
Criteria |
Score |
|
Content & Originality |
27 / 30 |
|
Clarity & Structure |
13 / 20 |
|
Language & Style |
14 / 20 |
|
Coherence & Argumentation |
15 / 20 |
|
Relevance & Impact |
10 / 10 |
|
Total |
79/100 |
Would you like a version with paragraph breaks and stylistic improvements, keeping your original tone intact? That could help increase both clarity and overall impact.
Absolutely. Here is a poem inspired by the themes in your piece—machines, lost emotion, the economic man, and the longing for a return to the natural, feeling human:
The Last Human Song
They taught us
we were only gears,
In systems cold, without our tears.
They drew a line through soul and skin,
And said that thought must always win.
They said the
horse could never feel,
That cries were only cogs and steel.
They crowned the mind, dethroned the heart,
And pulled the living world apart.
The trees
became a profit chart,
The oceans turned to shopping carts.
The teacher's voice became a drill,
The student's mind, a silent still.
A judge once
wept to make things right,
Now laws are punched in screens at night.
Machines decide what truth must be—
The heart removed from empathy.
And still, we
tried to be the tool,
To chase the numbers, play the fool.
We built machines to mine the sky,
But never stopped to ask us why.
Now robots hum
in factory rows,
While fields lie bare where nothing grows.
The cyborg smiles without a soul,
The biosphere pays out the toll.
Yet somewhere,
deep beneath this code,
A buried seed has not erode.
It dreams of forests, wind, and rain,
Of hands that touch, of love, of pain.
It dreams of
humans—wild and kind—
Who left the cogs and came to find
That feelings are not sins or flaws,
But nature’s deepest, truest laws.
So may we stop,
and hear the call—
Of rivers wild and creatures small.
Before we turn from dusk to dust,
Restore the earth. Reclaim the trust.
Would you like this poem formatted for print or presentation? Or turned into a spoken word script?
Rajaram Krishnamurthy
WHAT IS OUR BIOLOGICAL CONSTITUTION?
A MACHINE; RUNNING ALONG; WITH PROPER MAAINTENANCE LASTS LONGER THAN; ILL TREATMENT CUTS SHORT THE LIFE.
In spite of all its successes, modern biological science has done remarkably little to tackle the fundamental question that lies at its very heart, namely ‘What is the nature of the organism?’ Contemporary biologists (and philosophers of biology, for that matter) seldom ask this question openly and explicitly. One possible explanation is that many of them already presuppose the answer: the organism is a machine. Few notions in biology have exerted such a profound influence as the machine conception of the organism (MCO, hereafter) formulated by Descartes in the seventeenth century. Indeed, the history of biology since Descartes could almost be recounted as the story of the success of the MCO. Although dissatisfaction with the MCO is virtually as old as the idea itself, those biologists who historically found themselves in disagreement—the much-maligned vitalists—were ultimately unable to provide a compelling theoretical alternative to the MCO.
Today, the MCO appears to permeate most areas of biological inquiry. In molecular and developmental biology the standard ontological view of the organism is that of a complex machine programmed by its genetic software and decomposable into its component mechanisms (e.g., Jacob, 1973, Monod, 1977). Likewise, in evolutionary biology organisms are often conceived as optimally designed machines blindly engineered by natural selection (e.g., Dawkins, 1986, Dennett, 1995). Most recently, the widespread adoption of engineering principles in the emerging field of synthetic biology is being explicitly driven by a mechanical understanding of life (e.g., Andrianantoandro et al., 2006, Endy, 2005). Indeed, one of synthetic biology’s most publicized initiatives is the creation of a repository of standardized biological parts (called ‘BioBricks’) that can be mixed and matched in different ways to build artificial devices with new biological functions. Taking the MCO for granted, the ultimate goal is the design and manufacture of a whole living cell from scratch.
IT IS NOT THE MISTAKE OF DESCAARTE NOR THAT OF MACHINE; HOW WE USE THEM; CAN ANYONE LIVE WITHOUT A CELL OR LAPTOP FOR A DAY? UNLESS WE GO BACK TO 1960 HABITS IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. SO IF WE STOP OUR ADVAANCEMENTS WITHOUT PROPER CONTROL OF THE USAGE THEN WE HAVE TO BLAME ONLY OURSELVES. K RAJARAM IRS 4825
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "societyforservingseniors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to society4servingse...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/society4servingseniors/CACDCHC%2Bu6TQ4qyH_APPz6LgGNX_m7P2sLGe-Fi6%3DgNNwUOjhTw%40mail.gmail.com.