Could It Be Possible to "Manufacture" Humans?

[C.A.]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Whoa I think there is way too much optimism in such predictions. 50 years? That reminds me of when in the sixties they believe we would travel on space by the end of the past millennium.

Frankly I'm not expecting such a thing to happen in the next 500 years. To get to such a degree as uploading your whole consciousness into a computer we have yet thousands of obstacles to overcome. The complexity of the human brain cannot be expressed by the current technology. As much as incredible the nowadays computer may seem, they merely get to the level of an ant brain.

scientific documetaries tend to greatly exaggerate the new technologies. For instance they can claim teleports will become soon a reality only because a photon was teleported, completely ignoring that such a thing is immensely trivial compared to the deconstruction and reconstruction of an object (and even more true for an incredibly complex object like a human body).

The exponential increase of technology you theorize doesn't take in account the many barriers that exist in such path. So even if we can get fast on our progress at a certain time, we will most likely get to an halt at many points.

As optimistic as the prediction is, a prediction is still a prediction. The point is there are people working towards that direction and sooner or later it will be part of reality.

With computer processing speeds doubling every 6 months or so, its a fact that computers are becoming more powerful exponentially. Even the world's first commercial quantum computer has been demonstrated by D-wave.

Originally Posted by Freedan

Because if that were to happen, we wouldn't be human anymore, we would never be the same as we ware. All of that sounds exciting but being able to do all of that without putting in any kind of effort would make it meaningless. Being able to live forever as a machine, baing able to live in multiple places at the same time for all eternity, doing whatever you want to do simply because you can kills the feeling of achievement. Being able to do all those things seems exciting to me at first, but by the end of the day, what's the point when you can potentially do it forever? I prefer to stay 100% human, thank you

Humans are slowly reaching their limits as society becomes increasingly hectic, humans are demanding more speed and getting themselves wired up.

For you, or our entire generation, we may not want to or get to become robots, you can't say the same for the later generations. Implants may become common place and will soon progress into cybernetics and eventually lead to complete androids.

[Jan-Poo]

the problem is the definition of human.

In a pure biological sense a human is a mammal living being of the order of the primate. If we bind the definition of human to this, then there's no way we can create a non organic "human".
But another definition consider "human" in its pureness as a consciousness. With such a definition you could say that a robot could become "human".

Certainly it wouldn't be a "Living being" but nonetheless "human".

Regardless of that, let us imagine a "robot" which possess a consciousness, is able to have emotions and feelings and acts in the same way as any other human. In a few words a robot like the bicentennial man.

Now it could be argued that calling him "human" is correct, however saying that such a being is "merely a robot" wouldn't be any different than saying that we are "merely animals".

[Nosauz]

See how I see it is, that to be considered human you have to be able to reproduce, a hallmark feature of organic life is reproduction. Now if these "ai" could then that would be understandable but in all earnesty, even though we as humans are trying to get bigger, faster, stronger, all the time the shear amount of actual computer power required to generate free emotion, and the algorithms required to assess each and every situation given a certain stimuli is still far beyond our current technology. I mean we still can't even get robots to do more than a few special related tasks at time without high degradation in ability to complete those tasks. On top of that the Ai wouldn't be free from typical computer restrictions because it would require lots of data storage so maybe in next millenia we might see the beginning of synthetic androids that do simple tasks, but you won't be seeing free thinking robots for a long time.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by C.A.

For you, or our entire generation, we may not want to or get to become robots, you can't say the same for the later generations. Implants may become common place and will soon progress into cybernetics and eventually lead to complete androids.

There's no real way of knowing. Sure, human society will be required to operate at progressively higher speeds as time goes by, but are cybernetic implants really neccessary? You don't need to be a robot to process stock quotes on the exchange real time millisecond by millisecond. Humans are more than capable of producing supercomputers for that matter. That's from the aspect of economics. If we're thinking about the military, you can create robots, or battle droids, to do the fighting, but not neccessarily does a soldier need cybernetic implants. Perhaps an army can do that for the sake of gaining an advantage on the battlefield. But assuming peaceful times are ahead of us, would that be a neccessity?

Creating cybernetic implants and eventually creating cyborgs themselves will cost much more than creating supercomputers, battle droids, remotely controlled fighter jets and the likes. Cybernetics would be an advantage to some people, but the cost involved would be enormous, and the resources much too scarce for all of humanity to progress to a new robotic age. Life would also become much more predictable. I don't find meaning in the predictable.

[Jan-Poo]

the self-reproduction is part of the living being definition not the human definition.

@C.A.
On general lines I think we share the same idea, we just differ on the time that will be needed to achieve that. But actually there is another thing that I would like to inquire.

You said that we will able to download our consciousness into an artificial brain. I wonder if you have thought thoroughfully about what would this actually mean.

"download" is more of a fancy word in our common internet usage. When we "download" a program from a site, figuratively speaking it is like we take an object from a place and we bring it to another. However, reality is different. In reality we do not move anything. The program stays where it is, what we get is a copy.

Now let us imagine we are in the 2060 year you imagine. The technology to transpose a human consciousness into an artificial brain is finally available. You have been selected to test this out. So you go to this facility and let your brain be scanned and the resulting informations are copied into the artificial brain. The new consciousness that emerges is exactly you, but with more higher intellectual abilities. So this new "you" is a complete success, it is by any means a human consciousness.
Now... what would happen to the "organic" you? You sure understand that to achieve this "download" it is really not necessary to destroy the original. In other words the "you" that exists now, will still exists by then. "Disposing of" of the organic original will not be allowed, it would considered a murder or a suicide at best.

So now let us imagine we apply this new technology to the whole humanity, would that cause the extinction of the humanity as it now? Certainly it won't. We'd just have an incredible amount of artificial consciousness, but the humanity as it is now will still exist and procreate.

That is why I do not believe that the "transhuman" will replace the current humanity. I believe that they will exist, but merely as an addition. The current humanity will still exist short of catastrophe.

[C.A.]

Originally Posted by Freedan

There's no real way of knowing. Sure, human society will be required to operate at progressively higher speeds as time goes by, but are cybernetic implants really neccessary? You don't need to be a robot to process stock quotes on the exchange real time millisecond by millisecond. Humans are more than capable of producing supercomputers for that matter. That's from the aspect of economics. If we're thinking about the military, you can create robots, or battle droids, to do the fighting, but not neccessarily does a soldier need cybernetic implants. Perhaps an army can do that for the sake of gaining an advantage on the battlefield. But assuming peaceful times are ahead of us, would that be a neccessity?

Creating cybernetic implants and eventually creating cyborgs themselves will cost much more than creating supercomputers, battle droids, remotely controlled fighter jets and the likes. Cybernetics would be an advantage to some people, but the cost involved would be enormous, and the resources much too scarce for all of humanity to progress to a new robotic age. Life would also become much more predictable. I don't find meaning in the predictable.

I have to say I'm someone who thinks very far ahead, I've often wondered about humanity as an intergalactic society, no longer bound to just this planet.

All those trips to space by astronauts have shown that humans cannot survive in space for long, the body will cease to function as they do not work well in low gravity conditions. Also intergalactic travel by conventional means is impossible for a mortal human, the human life span is only limited to our own solar system at most.

For humans to advance into an intergalactic race, they must become a more efficient being.

I've never touched on the subject of war. But if its war, it will be fully done by computer viruses. When humans become data entities, they greatest threat would be a data attack on the intergalactic network.

Life becoming predictable? That's an extremely short-sighted point of view. In fact you will never be able to track anything on the intergalactic network at all, simply because everything would be quantum. You'll never be able to understand what the other 'person' is thinking at all if they do not want to share their data with you.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

the self-reproduction is part of the living being definition not the human definition.

@C.A.
On general lines I think we share the same idea, we just differ on the time that will be needed to achieve that. But actually there is another thing that I would like to inquire.

You said that we will able to download our consciousness into an artificial brain. I wonder if you have thought thoroughfully about what would this actually mean.

"download" is more of a fancy word in our common internet usage. When we "download" a program from a site, figuratively speaking it is like we take an object from a place and we bring it to another. However, reality is different. In reality we do not move anything. The program stays where it is, what we get is a copy.

Now let us imagine we are in the 2060 year you imagine. The technology to transpose a human consciousness into an artificial brain is finally available. You have been selected to test this out. So you go to this facility and let your brain be scanned and the resulting informations are copied into the artificial brain. The new consciousness that emerges is exactly you, but with more higher intellectual abilities. So this new "you" is a complete success, it is by any means a human consciousness.
Now... what would happen to the "organic" you? You sure understand that to achieve this "download" it is really not necessary to destroy the original. In other words the "you" that exists now, will still exists by then. "Disposing of" of the organic original will not be allowed, it would considered a murder or a suicide at best.

So now let us imagine we apply this new technology to the whole humanity, would that cause the extinction of the humanity as it now? Certainly it won't. We'd just have an incredible amount of artificial consciousness, but the humanity as it is now will still exist and procreate.

That is why I do not believe that the "transhuman" will replace the current humanity. I believe that they will exist, but merely as an addition. The current humanity will still exist short of catastrophe.

Yes, reproduction is part of life and by downloading/'uploading, you are making copies of your consciousness, which is also life itself.

So yes again, I do mean copying yourself, there will not be individuals of each person in the future. Each person is a network of themselves and they will run parallel but may feedback to their own terminal, server or some central unit of their network. You can have a body that is always doing work, at the same time one that's always enjoying, one that's always 'in-training' etc., all of them will feedback to your network and you'll be experiencing everything at the same time.

If humans become an intergalactic race, they must transcend space/time and the physical body.

[roriconfan]

The definition of what is a human being changes over the years. Let's not forget that even by today there are millions of people who consider Africans to be inferior just because of skin color and in most undeveloped countries women are treated as animals.

And let's not forget all those wiseguys claiming to be more human that others. Like the Nazi Arian race.

A funny quote I know is this: "All people are equal but some are more equal than others."

[oompa loompa]

@Jan-Poo Well put

This is something that I've thought about a little bit myself. Even if you manage to transfer your 'brain' onto some other form of media - it doesn't mean that you can live forever in an artificial body. On the contrary. There's no guarantee it'll be anything like 'you' after the transfer. Hell, forget a transfer into a digital format, I'd be extremely surprised if a person would be the same even if he transferred his brain into another organic body. Is the self a product of the body or the body a product of the self? Or are our interactions what predominantly shape us? If you have a network of 'selves' what guarantee is there that there will only be one 'you', and that each wont start branching out immediately once separated?

To be perfectly honest, there are still too many ambiguities in my mind to give any real thought to 'transferring minds' etc. Call me a new age hippie if you will, but transferrring bodies is far beyond what we should even be concerned about. Understanding the concept of consciousness, or rather just understanding how our minds really work is more than enough for the next 50 years in opinion - what really sets humans apart ( if there is such a thing)? I'm not going to argue my question(s) relevance from a general perspective, but when concerning 'mind transfer' etc, I do think they should be taken into consideration.

The only way it would possibly work is if you could preserve the actual brain in someway that it could continue functioning as normal - if this were possible I doubt we'd need new bodies to transfer to in the first place.

[roriconfan]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

"download" is more of a fancy word in our common internet usage. When we "download" a program from a site, figuratively speaking it is like we take an object from a place and we bring it to another. However, reality is different. In reality we do not move anything. The program stays where it is, what we get is a copy.

Now let us imagine we are in the 2060 year you imagine. The technology to transpose a human consciousness into an artificial brain is finally available. You have been selected to test this out. So you go to this facility and let your brain be scanned and the resulting informations are copied into the artificial brain. The new consciousness that emerges is exactly you, but with more higher intellectual abilities. So this new "you" is a complete success, it is by any means a human consciousness.
Now... what would happen to the "organic" you? You sure understand that to achieve this "download" it is really not necessary to destroy the original. In other words the "you" that exists now, will still exists by then. "Disposing of" of the organic original will not be allowed, it would considered a murder or a suicide at best.

We can always assume the download will be a back up to revive you if your original body dies. That is, if your original gets incenerated, you can have a vegetable clone and you download your knowledge and wisdom in it. Sounds like immortality if you manage to adjust the clone's body age.

This of course still has the issues of if it is ilegal to download into a different body or to allow two of you at the same time or if each new cloning slowly degenerates the cloning body or if hormones and endorphines make you behave different when you transfer into a cloned body or if you count as you if you lack the experiances of the original by the time gap the original died and the back up was created.

Some of these issues are touched upon in the Gantz manga.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by C.A.

Scientists have worked on implants for some time, but now implants that allow humans to interact with computers, machines and even the internet wireless is already a reality. Scientists believe that in less than 50 years, you can literally upload your entire brain into a computer or download all sorts of data into your brain.

And when robotics, cybernetics and other mechanical advancements catch up, you can upload your mind into a mechanical body and live without aging. And when nanotechnology, claytonics and other advanced nanomaterial technologies become common place, robots and humans will look and function exactly the same and everyone would be a robot.

I want that. My left arm has been giving me problems since I start carrying heavy loads on an extensive basis. A mechanical arm with copper wiring to reroute pain would do alot of good for me.

What JanPoo has mentioned is right. Back in the 1910s railguns are imagined, but up till now there is one has been built an tested by the US Navy, rather than it replacing the 120mm cannons on MBTs around the world. Things often go a long way when it is more complicated than we have imagined it to be.

Nanotechnology is particularly complex on its own. Up till now, the only commercialised form of it is the Silver Nano technology used in cleaning machines like washing machines and air-con filters. It will take extensive research and real scientists to evolve it into that of Japan in Red Alert 3, immediate construction of complex architecture.

Speaking about nanotech, one good example of its harm and lack of countermeasure would be carbon nanotubes. Because of their size and high surface area per atom, it allows them to freely bond (for those who do not know, read up on the atomic structure of carbon. It isn't rocket science). Meaning which, it can be as dangerous as AIDS which can be spread through air due to its ability to do things at beyond cellular level.

Before we rush in and build things, it is important to think of the consequences as well. But I wouldn't mind uploading my mind to a female body for once to see how they actually think like.

With all that download and upload, I was thinking should we call it downloading information or uploading information into our brain if such cybernetics are available?

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by mit7059

It'll never happen. I seriously doubt that a robot could be made that perfectly mimicked a human. Plus they probably wouldn't be considered human because they wouldn't be able to reproduce. It's a moot point though because its debatable whether or not that level of AI could even be programmed, as someone who is currently working in robotics research I can tell you that I certainly don't think I'll see anything close to a sentient robot within my lifetime or even in my hypothetical children's lifetime.

A human cannot program a fully blown human intelligence. Pretty much an entropy problem. But humans might be able to copy the basics of the hardware (brain) which are part of the AI problem. Maybe they can even implant sort of a seed that can learn/program itself. Like all humans do when they grow up.

In my oppinion this is not entirely impossible... but it will be hard to "produce" something that is on par with a human being.

Originally Posted by Kafriel

Nowhere in the world exist two humans that are exactly the same, even twins have differences. You can't create a robot identical to humans, for they lack conciousness: while robots are created to follow certain instructions, humans can act by instinct. Emotions cannot be made into instructions, one would only manage to list their results (changes in mental state,expression,etc.).
At any rate, assuming this would somehow be possible, the answer is no, because people are racists even between normal humans, imagine how they'd act towards artificial humans, even if they were the same.

Conciousness and selfawareness does not exist in a pure form. No human is fully selfaware. They just believe to know themselves. It is what a human brain makes itself believe to be itself. And this is usually a very subjective process that is different for different brains/humans (different hardware and programming).
But it is never objective. So it is enough to program something that believes that it knows itself. If you can do that, you have also solved the problem of selfawareness.

Emotions are the result of stimuli which can be emotions itself. Emotions are like a global state that influences the way instructions are processed. Thus, emotions just add to the complexity of "processing instructions". Emotions follow basic rules that could be described in a non static set of rules (instructions).
Its just because you cannot understand the concept of emotions that you believe it is impossible to "artificially create" them.

But I agree with you. Racist and norrowminded people cannot develop such technology (I hope that doesn't offend you ). This requires unbiased or "robot loving" humans (which I believe do exist).

Originally Posted by C.A.

IF the technology allows, yes, we can create 'humans', robots, androids etc. that behave just like a human.

But no, we won't do it, because if we have such technology, we would rather create a being even better than a human. And instead of giving it a unique consciousness, we could just transfer our own into them.

Humans are not 'perfect beings' or the 'highest form of evolution' or something great, we are just complex biological machines with a sophisticated bio-computer and operating system. If technology allows, why stop at creating something equivalent to ourselves when we can create something even better?

If we consider no major resets in evolution (like disastrous events) one can conclude from history that evolution is steadily speeding up over time.
But I think the key to success in this scheme is not specialization as described in your post but deversity.
Modern society relies heavily on robots and robots rely heavily on modern society. At the moment there is a state of symbiosis. Should we ever create something that has superior intelligence, then this intelligence should come to the same conclusion, that diversity and symbiosis is better than getting rid of the seemingly inferior creator. Besides, such an AI is most likely more humanist than most humans today.

Originally Posted by Kafriel

^ Because that "something better" might consider our extinction, just as we consider the extinction of mosquitoes? Humans are most damaging towards the environment after all~

Only a rather stupid AI would consider the extinction of mosquitoes (means it is not really superior to humans anyway).

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I believe that the open lecture I am going to next Thursday is going to cover this (it is at a local uni).

A robot's "sentience" would be based on the brain it is given, technically speaking, the functional AI. Sentience is based on experience, namely what it feels, sees, hears, tastes and smells, which models into something called perception. A human being who has been in a coma for 5 years since birth will have as much sentience as a "sentient" robot which is activated at the same moment which he wakes up.

I don't believe that there is a "right" to life at all. If one wants to live, he/she has to dare to, fight to and be willing to live. Otherwise that thing would be a piece of animated metal or soylent green.

@ C.A - Creating a superior being will spell our demise because it just simply puts us down the food chain and further dividing the human race. Besides, we already created superior beings in our imagination, they just don't physically exist yet, and look at the kind of segregation it causes across the world.

Your post begins promising... but I cannot agree with your conclusion on superior beings. I mean inferior humans make stories of superior beings that are as inferior as its creators who imagined them and thus allow for being misused by other inferior humans to control uneducated (even more inferior) humans.

A truly superior being would want to see humans develop into the same stage of superiority because diversity is the key to success in evolution. Its not like a superior being needs to destroy humanity to survive or something like that. Even a very superior being cannot predict if humanity might not prove to be important for the future development/existence of the superior being.

[oompa loompa]

Originally Posted by roriconfan

We can always assume the download will be a back up to revive you if your original body dies. That is, if your original gets incenerated, you can have a vegetable clone and you download your knowledge and wisdom in it. Sounds like immortality if you manage to adjust the clone's body age.

This of course still has the issues of if it is ilegal to download into a different body or to allow two of you at the same time or if each new cloning slowly degenerates the cloning body or if hormones and endorphines make you behave different when you transfer into a cloned body or if you count as you if you lack the experiances of the original by the time gap the original died and the back up was created.

Some of these issues are touched upon in the Gantz manga.

No that's exactly where questions arise. If you die, and you have your brain backed up somewhere, and you get transferred to a vegetative body, you still die. You're not immortal, you lived a normal life for a normal amount of time. The body that the mind is transferred to is not 'you' so to speak, its just a copy of you. Which brings up other questions - what is "you"?

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Jinto

A truly superior being would want to see humans develop into the same stage of superiority because diversity is the key to success in evolution. Its not like a superior being needs to destroy humanity to survive or something like that. Even a very superior being cannot predict if humanity might not prove to be important for the future development/existence of the superior being.

Very well said, if a "superior being" first step in the world would be the total annihilation of an "inferior" sentient species then maybe it isn't really correct to call it superior. What would be the next step? Going into the galaxy and eradicate all the other sentient forms? While they are at it, they could as well eradicate any kind of living being. What is the purpose of that? This would be plain mindless foolishness.

Now you could find plenty of movie that show a dystopian future where machine decide to annihilate or enslave humanity as soon as they get sentience (Matrix and terminator, but also Casshern), however movies tend to be catastrophic because the story put so is more interesting than a story where everything goes well.

The possibility might exist, but in that case it would be a total failure. If we will end creating such beings we humanity, in the role of one of the step of the evolution of the universe, will fail. But stepping down from such a role because of fear of a failure is also another way to fail.

The kind of transhuman that will born from humanity is impossible to predict and it is impossible to predict if we will ever achieve that. But we have a path open in front of us, and the journey has already begun. The aim to a higher and higher level of complexity in the universe is a fact, and we are certainly not at the ultimate level. We might be able to create a new level complexity in this universe, and even if we don't, another sentient species somewhere in the universe, somewhere in the aeons to come will.

[oompa loompa]

Ahem, I might point out in the matrix its actually just as much the humans fault


edit:
Oooh, speaking of aliens and other sentient beings, (while we're on the topic) If the Rare Earth Hypothesis (That life on earth is extremely unusual, if not unique - which explains why there hasn't yet been any contact with extraterrestrials) is correct, do you think that has any implication on the "self"? (assuming it to be unique, not unusual) - If indeed, the earth is unique are we more than biological machines?

[Jan-Poo]

Ahem, I might point out in the matrix its actually just as much the humans fault

And what did I say? It's the human failure any way you look at it. Anyway the matrix doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

As for the rare earth hypothesis, I believe it is probably true that the conditions that allowed life to exist can be compared to winning a lottery. But what is this chance? One on a quadrillion? Even if it is it would still be far from making earth an "unique" case. This universe is huge beyond any human comprehension, and probably we are just seeing a fragment of it. Even if earth is the only planet in the whole galaxy (and we are talking about 200 billions to 400 billions of stars) from which life emerged, there is still another 200 billion or so of other galaxies.

[stubby42]

I think its been established by almost every science fiction film ever that if we dont treat robots as equals they'll kill us but are quite happy to live along side us if their our friends.

When I get my first robot that can hold a conversation, I'm going to ask it how its day was.

[ClockWorkAngel]

Thing with the great Robotic holocaust is that it's assuming that Robots don't following the rules of robotics. Or there's some sort of thing that makes robots go crazy on us; something we shouldn't be bothering programming in.

The problem with copies etc, is this; when you make a copy of yourself; that copy isn't you. It's you in that it has your memories etc, but once you're dead; you're dead. But a copy will replace you. Unless we can upload our entire consciousness onto a computer (Which is quite feasible once we get quantum computing and probably incorporate a bit of organic matter to it) which isn't impossible; after all for the most part they are just electrical signals.

It's a rather distant view on what is humanity; in a way we'll become less human; but I'm sure we'll regard ourselves as a different term etc. I don't think the word matters; just what it encompasses.

And I'm quite sure there'll be aliens; it'd be ridiculous if there isn't, the universe and its many multiverses will guarantee life elsewhere; it's all about distance.

Life won't be boring; because interaction is the great motivator of life; a single immortal will be bored and detached, a huge amount of immortals would be entertained with one another.

The concepts of data corruption by others means that there'll have to be a way to make it secure; somehow. Its a dangerous world either way; and the best you can do is partition yourself.

Regardless of how we advance, more research MUST be done on the brain first before we can ever hope to truly abandon our bodies; but with quantum computing becoming a reality I find that quite plausible.

Besides immortality is quite achievable to a degree nowadays; stem cells and the such mean that life will be dependent on the status of your brain (And even then it might be able to be improved).

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by stubby42

I think its been established by almost every science fiction film ever that if we dont treat robots as equals they'll kill us but are quite happy to live along side us if their our friends.

When I get my first robot that can hold a conversation, I'm going to ask it how its day was.

frankly it depends on how you program them. If you program them to be mindless drone, such a possibility will never happen. Robots already exist but the probability that such robots will rebel against human is zero, because they simply don't have enough intelligence to do so.

humanoid robots that will be used as working force will exist in the future, but such robots won't have anything to do with the "Human" robots. It would be the same as comparing an insect to a man.

A robot that gains the sentience should be treated as a sentient, a robot that has not achieved that level should be treated as a machine.

[roriconfan]

^ and human vegetables should be treated as plants?

[Cipher]

Science has its limits. Wait for 10 years, it won't happen. Wait for 100 years, still won't. Wait for a Millennium, nope. Time will be my evidence.

But if it will and science doesn't have any limit..then you can look at the civilizations within Matrix and Animatrix as a prophesizing example.

Hm...two people will be able to act and react at an alarming rate of 100% accurate perfect mimicking. That would certainly be amusing, but lets face it. As there is no such 100%, there is no unlimited science. (on the other hand, magic might be a different case....yes i believe in Fictitious Display of Unexplainable Impossibilities otherwise known as magic (or miracles).)