The argument exists that a computer can only do what it is programmed to do and nothing more. This is known as the Obedient Slave Argument or the Lady Lovelace Objection. The theory behind this particular argument is that no matter what a computer is capable of doing no matter how big the task, it is limited to that particular job. A program is written with specific parameters and the bounds of those parameters are the extent of the capabilities of the computer.
             As technology progresses there has been a dramatic increase in the sophistication of software as well as hardware that is being designed and put into use. We now have computers that are able to recognize individual voices, track and monitor flight plans of airplanes and foresee any possible dangers. We even have computers that can consume food, break it down through digestion with the use of bacteria and power its CPU. If a computer is able to be self sustaining, meaning live a day to day existence without the direct help of an outside source is it still a machine or has technology progressed to the point of creating an actual living organism? These are just some of the current questions that we are faced with.
             Through technology science has been able to produce networks of artificial brain cells that are able to recognize and learn patterns. The quest for artificial intelligence is no longer made up of nuts and bolts, plastic and steel. Science is now able to manipulate, copy and adapt systems from biology. They have gone so far as to create machines that work in teams, machines that evolve and virtual creatures that learn, age, breed and die. How can a self sustaining, learning, breeding biological organism be considered a machine? These are all things that we currently use to distinguish between humans and machines. With these lines blurred how will we decide what is alive and what is a machine?
             The argument presented here is that with the production...