Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
The Human Mind Will Always Be Superior To Machines Because Machines Are Only Tools Of Human Minds.- With A Free Essay Review
“Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.”
I agree with the statement that the human mind will always be superior to machines since machines are only tools of human minds; without specific demand or input, the machine would not be able to perform a task automatically, and machines cannot analyze situations as flexibly as humans, either.
First of all, I believe that even with the most advanced machine, unless the command or input is given, the machine itself is not be able to perform any task. Instead, machines are utilized by people, and help improve their presicion or efficiency. Further, a piece of machine cannot think, it will not be able to perform any task unless people give it a specific instruction. For instance, the washing machine will not automatically wash dirty clothes unless someone put clothes in it, and turn it on. Therefore, I think the human mind is superior machines because machines are tools we use, and machines will not do any work voluntarily without any instruction.
In addition, another reason I think the human mind is superior to machines is because machines cannot analyze the situation as flexibly as humans. Even the most cutting-edge computers or machines cannot analyze the situation as flexibly as humans, since these machines were programed with limited solutions or responses corresponding to certain inputs by engineers. In other words, these machines cannot reach as far as engineers, who programmed them. Whereas the potential of the human mind is unpredictable. Thus, I think the human mind is superior to machines.
However, considering about some specific functions such as calculation, I agree that some machines can perform some specific task with higher precision or efficiency compared to humans. For instance, calculators or computational programs are able to perform sophisticated computation within minutes while it may take a mathematician hours to do. Nevertheless, these computers are limited to repetitive steps and of course can hardly be as creative as humans, since the performances of computers are pre-determined.
To sum up, I agree that the human mind is superior to machines since machines require instructions to perform tasks, and they cannot flexibly analyze situations as humans, even though they are able to perform some tasks with higher precision and efficiency.
A good deal of your argument here is based on assertions of the limits of machine capability, and those assertions tend to be repetitive. Essentially, you argue that machines are dependent on instructions provided by humans. Up to a point, this is true. Up to a point, of course, it may also be true that everything we do is dependent on instructions, that we are also (genetically) coded in a certain sense. To be sure, your argument would still be valid if it could be demonstrated that machines necessarily lack the kind of creativity and freedom and, to pick up on one point you mention specifically, the flexibility to respond in ever new ways to ever new external stimuli. I'm not convinced that machines will always lack that creativity or flexibility or freedom. In any case, I would emphasize these three words in the prompt "will always be" and remind you that the word "always" should always (bar this one time!) be treated with skepticism.
Machines in any case can already perform many tasks without the need for specific input from humans; certainly without the need for a specific input from a specific human at a specific time. Some cars already are programmed to override what humans are programmed to do in certain circumstances. Future cars presumably will drive more safely without the need for human intervention at all (that at least is Google's bet). That doesn't make cars superior, but it makes the posed question more difficult.
Ultimately, I don't think your essay adequately addresses the reason offered in the original claim for believing that the human mind will always be superior. The reason is this: "machines are only tools of human minds." Your essay doesn't really grapple with that claim. The phrase "tools of human minds" is ambiguous, but even if we take it to mean "tools produced by human minds" (rather than "tools used by human minds" - and there is obviously no reason to assume we cannot use tools that are in some sense superior to us), it seems unlikely that human minds would be breaking some deep principle if collectively they produced a tool smarter than or superior to any of the individual creators.
P.S. The washing machine example seems a bit silly, since you are talking about century-old technology there.