So, I was reading the link here about anthropdenial, and while most people might get "well, then they aren't machines", to me it just proved one thing: humans are machines.

A machine is defined as: "an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task: "

Well, all that is true in any organisim.

1. several parts with definite functions: a liver cell only works for the immune system, nerves only for processing, muscles only for moving
2. definite function that isn't the same when combined?: nowhere is there a cell for "make noise to communicate". Yet, we can talk. Dogs can bark. No where is there a cell for body language, and yet horses can communicate almost soely via body language...

Then, as for the brain, and instincts vs. sentience? well:

Our instincts are just the pre-programed parts. Think of it like the BIOS. Then, the more advanced part that came with reptiles (And more advanced fish) allowing some reasoning. That's the Operating System. Memories, and all of that? Those are just extra's. That's word, excel, so on. More advanced organisims are guarenteed to have at least some of that, and even the "basic" ones (fish), will often have it, proving Parallel Evolution.

Now, humans like to think we are driven by more than instincts, but, ultimately? We are just instincts with some thoughts. We are mere automatons, with some extra bits. Those "extra bits" allow launguage, communication, and so on. Because those are helpful, they can be kept. The nice side effects are sentience. But, when you break it down, sentience is just the excess brain power. Anything sufficiently advanced is bound to become sentient. But, ultimatly, we are just machines following our programing, as are all animals. We can just attempt to manipulate the actions of said programs.

So, that means: the greeks where right in saying animals are like machines. They just forgot the fact that that include humans as a machine!

If we break it down further, the body might act like a machine, but the cells are machines. With a single purpouse. Reproduce, copy. Even cells like the liver, ultimatly they act as a filter, but their primary goal is to duplicate. It's just in their interest to keep the macro-system (the body) alive.

Reading Bonobo and the Atheist seriously changed my way of looking at animals. Main idea of the book (at least in my opinion) is that many emotions we recognize as "human", i.e. caring for others, being kind or empathetic, is quite common among apes, and even beyond. Author suggests, that if some behaviors are common in different species, there is probably singular reason for them. Also he arguments that we as humans firstly feel we should make some decision, and just then find a rational reason why we should do it.

Some quotes:

“Those who exclaim that “animals are not people” tend to forget that, while true, it is equally true that people are animals. To minimize the complexity of animal behavior without doing the same for human behavior erects an artificial barrier.”

​

“Along with people in other creative professions, such as artists and musicians, many scientists experience this transcendence. I do so every day. For one, it's impossible to look an ape in the eye and not see oneself. There are other animals with frontally oriented eyes, but none that give you the shock of recognitions of the ape's. Looking back at you is not so much an animal but a personality as solid and willful as yourself.”

​

“if two closely related species act the same under similar circumstances, the mental processes behind their behavior are likely the same, too. The alternative would be to postulate that, in the short time since they diverged, both species evolved different ways of generating the same behavior.”