Are we androids too?

Yes. Weyland made the same point in his TED video. The problem with this hierarchy is that "gods of gods" never ends. Singularity can't be achieved that way. So our creator is more or less like us but this is again assumption if we consider genetic tampering and panspermia as origin.

there are people who think they´re artificial, but these suffer of serious psychosis. interesting, too: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capgras_delusion]Your text to link here...[/url]

This links to the Prometheus myth. Creating androids would be equivalent to giving/stealing fire. I find it kind of hard to believe that RS will let his story be tied down by old myths. Instead of having to follow the myths I guess RS rather uses his own creativity, and as we could see in the figure of Ash in Alien, he had fun showing a robot which seems to be useful for "bad" human activities. So, to continue your questions, if now David would create some life, would we want to punish him? Instead we might modify our creation to perform better according to our rules. Well, for a creative being it might be a hell of punishment to have creativity taken away again.

flesh-like resemblance. We would look and act like our Creator (~Human too). So, if we were created: Humans=Androids. "The Free Dictionary" on android: "An automaton that is created from biological materials and resembles a human. Also called humanoid." Basically human body is a machine, biological machine. Same conclusion as before, if we were created: Humans=Androids.">Nice to see so many threads dealing with the basic questions: What is God, and who are we? Wikipedia on Androids: "An android is a robot or synthetic organism designed to look and act like a human, and with a body having a flesh-like resemblance" Therefore, if we humans indeed were created as image of something, that would mean [u]we are[/u] androids. Our flesh and skin would resemble those of our creator -> flesh-like resemblance. We would look and act like our Creator (~Human too). So, if we were created: Humans=Androids. "The Free Dictionary" on android: "An automaton that is created from biological materials and resembles a human. Also called humanoid." Basically human body is a machine, biological machine. Same conclusion as before, if we were created: Humans=Androids. EDIT: I would like to add that all these things are play with definitions. Bottom line is that we are somewhat free-minded creatures with certain urges to certain activities (mostly reproduction and self-preservation). So in the end, only thing that matters is such a clichee as: We are what we choose to be.

I always find we think and do these things backwards. It is not God creating us in own image, it is that when we imagine God, we imagine God with our own features. A baby may imagine God as a huge, all-powerful baby. Cuddles may imagine it as the space squid to end all space squids. And our creations tend not to resemble us very closely at all (for all the talk about convincing robots or androids, the only functioning ones thus far are the imaginary ones invented by Ridley; all attempts to create humanoid robots have thus far failed dismally, not to mention the cost of even such unsuccessful attempts (and they are mostly brute froce technology, thus VERY FAR INDEED from ANDROIDS). Ridley's androids are more of a great philosophical device than an invention close to reality (science has found that we appear to be biochemical devices and nothing more, so when Ridley is talking about androids, he is ALWAYS talking about us in allegory.) My guess is, if we ever reach the level that we can create novel beings, the beings would look nothing like us (this is the reason I'm chaffing at the Blue Guy as Space Imhotep; if it ain't a mutated crew member, then it's cheesy Imhotep, can't help it. Asd for panspermia theory, the problem I've always had with that is that it does not resolve the Big Question - how did complex life come to be - it merely pushes the question one level further away from us. (if we were created by someone, fine enough, but who created our creator, our creator's creator, and so forth ad infinitum?) I'm not sayin it is necessartily untrue, just that it resolves very little, really.

huh but since something artificial cannot be self aware is nothing more than a washmachine .... that is the difference ..is not the creator the difference , its not the flesh-metal skin the difference . To me is a bit absurd to think that AI can be self aware ( but of course is MY opinion ) , said that all the rest is just playing with terms and EVERYHTING can be functional to a sci fi story . And anyway there will be no answers in a sci fi movie huh .

You hit it on the head, Frantz... the one thing science cannot explain (and religions claim they can even though they really cannot either) is why we are here and self-aware in the first place. Science does a piss-poor job here: while good at explaining consciousness away, it is entirely inept at explaining it. The best argument is that our consciousness is but an illusion; fine enough, but what is having the illusion? Religions try to explain it, but the result is generally ludicrous, like claiming that if equations cannot solve a given physics problem, using finger paint or crayons will solve it immediately. And yet... where is our consciousness when we sleep without dreaming? Not there, as if non-existent during that couple of hours... Or, imagine that one removed your memory and sensation...this happens in some patients...what, if anything is left of the whole "consciousness" item? "Perhaps the god of biomechanics will let me into Paradise" - R. Batty

Bleep bleep.. does not compute... ok, you've got me. Time for an upgrade (Oww 9)

@Frantz & Wirrn Self-awarness is hard subject. Especially when it's the humans deciding the criteria of what it is to be self-aware. One common and really popular has been the "Mirror test". But many scientists have argued that it's a bad test, as many dogs don't pass the mirror test, but as much as I have been with dogs I definetly would say that they are self-aware. How about dangerously obese people, are they self-aware when eating? Because 99% must have heard from somewhere that they are risking their lives doing that. This may sounds far-fetched, but think about: What it is to be a program, or artificial. I would say it is about following some logic/code which has been programmed in you, like: Food - Good No Food - Bad -> resulting in actions: Eat all the food you can get (actually pretty good rule if there arent much food around) So are the obese acting as if they are: -Programmed to eat -They completely freely choose to eat -They know they shouldn't eat, but they still eat? (If this obese person is truly self-aware, he should be able to stop himself, this is how I see it atleast) According to Bible, God created humans and gave them self-awareness. Nowhere it is mentioned that any animals would have been created self-aware, though many animals have been proven to be self-aware (chimps and delphins atleast). And still I see people follow their urges like machines. And what about Clones. Sooner or later, someone will artificially clone a human being, and even add little changes to its DNA, maybe. By definition that artificial can't be self-aware, this clone should be nothing more but a fleshy robot, and especially if the "soul" is gift from God. What is the difference between Artificial and Living Human? These are really hard subjects which interest many people and even scientist, some even dedicating their whole lives studying these. Ridley Scotts movie Blade Runner is basically about this same subject.

@everyone: I love your answers brothers! They all offer a new point of view on the issue. But maybe we should remember something I haven't posted in the initial discussion point...That we are supposed to be build not only to the image of our creator.... Us humans, or humanoids for this thread, are supposed to be unique, as we are also built with the additional ability to resemble fully our creator. This is critically important, as we are the only beings on Earth's creation, blessed to be of the same essence with our creator, and the image which is supposed to be how we look like externally, which I believe is a far cry from the true image of our creator..... Now, being of the same essence as an ability, is extremely important...If you make it and fulfill this ability, then you stop being what you were, as you enter the essence of "God" and share a direct communication with him as well as every gift and abilities and whatever else he would like to share with you.... I don't believe we would be as benevolent to a creation like David... Of course, I don't want you to engage into religious stuff, I only write this with regard to the Prometheus script, as technically, such issues must have impacted the scenario. Poor David, would never be of the same essence with us, his creators, as we are already ourselves far away from the essence of God. Remember, we have the ability to be of the same essence with God, and the free will to go after it. It's not given. So David, might resemble our essence so far, which would be the little true knowledge of ourselves and our arrogance and lack of humility. Anyway, I remain pretty happy, as RS might give us a chance to contemplate on such issues and become more humble. Cause as he said:"Maybe I wanna show that some things better stay unexplained". You do the math!

"Hey, so what are you gonna lose? You came from nothing, you go back to nothing. So what have you lost? Nothing!" - M. Python

"Maybe I wanna show that some things better stay unexplained" oh dear...when on Earth did RS turn into Spielberg making Jurrasic Park? This "better left unexplained" stuff is the lamest horror movie cliche ever...as in science, answers, even when exact, only lead to even more interesting questions. Perhaps "don't tamper with things you don't really understand, because chaos will ensue" would be a better motto? Once upoon a time, SJ Gould the great late evolutionary biologist was sooooooooooo pissed off at Spielberg for turning the greatest point of the Jurassic Park book ("chaos theory means inherent unpredictability, so don't think you can control complex things you create, it is inherently impossible and they will spill out") into the lame "there are some things best left unexplored" cliche. You can do better that that, RS, you, ve show it many times, so DO IT!!!

@Wirrn: I like your spirit man. RS told this, rather as a figure of speech. I believe if he had more time to elaborate on this, he would have said something different. I believe he is the man we think he is , to make a difference. I also believe that after the movie has played out, he will be more free to reveal his true vision on the film as he already said, "it is impossible to talk about the script of Prometheus, without revealing key points of its story" something he dearly wanted to stray off....

[img]http://www.sectalk.com/board/public/imported_images/seoboy.com/implied-facepalm.jpg[/img]

@takka_takka_takka: told you I love that cat!