Skip to main contentSkip to solution

Nature has all along yielded her flesh to humans. First, we took nature's materials as food, fibers, and shelter. Then we learned to extract raw materials from her biosphere to create our own new synthetic materials. Now Bios is yielding us her mind we are taking her logic.

Clockwork logic—the logic of the machines will only build simple contraptions. Truly complex systems such as a cell, a meadow, an economy, or a brain (natural or artificial) require a rigorous nontechnological logic. We now see that no logic except bio-logic can assemble a thinking device, or even a workable system of any magnitude.

It is an astounding discovery that one can extract the logic of Bios out of biology and have something useful. Although many philosophers in the past have suspected one could abstract the laws of life and apply them elsewhere, it wasn't until the complexity of computers and human-made systems became as complicated as living things, that it was possible to prove this. It's eerie how much of life can be transferred. So far, some of the traits of the living that have successfully been transported to mechanical systems are: self-replication, self- governance, limited self-repair, mild evolution, and partial learning.

We have reason to believe yet more can be synthesized and made into something new. Yet at the same time that the logic of Bios is being imported into machines, the logic of Technos is being imported into life. The root of bioengineering is the desire to control the organic long enough to improve it. Domesticated plants and animals are examples of techno-logics applied to life. The wild aromatic root of the Queen Anne's lace weed has been fine-tuned over generations by selective herb gatherers until it has evolved into a sweet carrot of the garden; the udders of wild bovines have been selectively enlarged in a "unnatural" way to satisfy humans rather than calves. Milk cows and carrots, therefore, are human inventions as much as steam engines and gunpowder are. But milk cows and carrots are more indicative of the kind of inventions humans will make in the future: products that are grown rather than manufactured.

Genetic engineering is precisely what cattle breeders do when they select better strains of Holsteins, only bioengineers employ more precise and powerful control. While carrot and milk cow breeders had to rely on diffuse organic evolution, modern genetic engineers can use directed artificial evolution a purposeful design which greatly accelerates improvements.

The overlap of the mechanical and the lifelike increases year by year. Part of this bionic convergence is a matter of words. The meanings of "mechanical" and "life" are both stretching until all complicated things can be perceived as machines, and all self-sustaining machines can be perceived as alive. Yet beyond semantics, two concrete trends are happening:(1) Human-made things are behaving more lifelike, and (2) Life is becoming more engineered. The apparent veil between the organic and the manufactured has crumpled to reveal that the two really are, and have always been, of one being.

The author claims that, "Part of this bionic convergence is a matter of words". Which one of the following statements best expresses the point being made by the author?

Solution

✅ Correct Option: 1

We need to find what the author means when they say the bionic convergence is "a matter of words". Let us trace through the passage to understand this concept.

The key lies in the final paragraph where the author explains this statement. They're talking about how word meanings are changing.

From passage: "The meanings of 'mechanical' and 'life' are both stretching until all complicated things can be perceived as machines, and all self-sustaining machines can be perceived as alive."


Here's the thought process:

Author says convergence is partly about words -> meanings of "mechanical" and "life" are stretching -> boundaries between these concepts are blurring -> things that were once seen as opposite are now overlapping

The author is explaining that our language and definitions are evolving. Words that used to mean very different things are now becoming more similar in meaning.


🟢 Option 1 is correct -> captures the blurring of previously opposite concepts perfectly. The passage clearly states the meanings are "stretching" so mechanical and life can be perceived as similar.

🔴 Option 2 -> contradicts passage -> says they're "fundamentally incompatible" when the author argues they're converging and becoming more similar

🔴 Option 3 -> contradicts passage -> mentions "mutually exclusive" meanings when the author says they're overlapping and converging

🔴 Option 4 -> scope-error -> too narrow and specific. Focuses on genetic engineering and AI rather than the broader point about word meanings changing

The confusion students might have is between options 1 and 4, since both seem to address convergence. But option 4 misses the "matter of words" aspect entirely - it's about specific technologies, not about how language and meanings are evolving.

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question