One of the key points that perpetually surfaces in the Intelligent Design debate is comparing animate with inanimate objects and attempting to draw comparisons or conclusions¹.  This becomes more pronounced when we begin to consider the role of less tangible elements, like intelligence, and begin considering how such a thing would manifest in a machine.  In effect, it's the problem of determining what life is and how does it differ from everything else.

Often we look at complex machinery and associate meanings or parallels to biological systems, however this is an incorrect perspective.  No matter how sophisticated the machine is, it is invariably only a tool and as such needs to be examined from that viewpoint.

Biology consists of much detailed information regarding genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, and a variety of other components.  This has provided a great deal of insight into how life functions, evolves, and reproduces.  However, there are other realms of biology that attempt to find order where perhaps none exists.  In discussions of topics like "selfish genes", or "kin selection", or Hamilton's rule, we are getting into areas where causation is being sought where none may specifically exist or at least, not of a general type.

There have been many discussions relating to transhumanism and augmenting intelligence as well as just intelligence itself.  However, at the heart of many of these discussions the subject of Artificial Intalligence (AI) emerges.  This raises the question of whether AI is possible and what it actually means.

There is no question that machines can be built to perform many intelligent-like acts and simulate human intelligence, but I would argue that there is a fundamental difference that isn't often mentioned.

I recently read, in one of the posts, the following statement.

"Evolution is not fair, economics is not fair."

http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_articles/chemical_engineer_solves_capitalism_problem

I'm sure we've all heard the platitude that "life is not fair", which set me to thinking about what these statements even mean.

In this article I am going to suggest that this arbitrary separation is meaningless.  Much like physics had to come to terms with wave-particle duality, biology must consider the same perspective where the answer depends very much on the question and how it is asked.