请教Issue 64号题, 北美范文的观点不是很明白,谢谢

lightlalaUID: 3106588

64The human mind will always be superior to machines because machines are
only tools of human minds

这篇范文作者从三个方面写
1. 机器是工具,
2. 如何定义superior
    如果指的是机械劳动机器确实superior, 但在独立思考,判断,情感方面人类superior
3. 这点里的句子比较费解
第一段提出自己的观点作者用的这句话
partly on how willing one is to humble oneself to the unknown future scenarios.

结尾总结
Besides, should we ever become so clever a species as to devise machines that can truly think for themselves and look out for their own well-being, then query whether these machines of the future would be "machines'' anymore.

结合作者中间的论述,我觉得作者的观点是, 现在机器还没有独立思考能力,但是随着生物,基因工程的研究,有可能机器也具有人类的这些能力.
这样反过来看作者论点,
partly on how willing one is to humble oneself to the unknown future scenarios.
意思是不是: 机器能否超越人类取决于人类愿意投入多少到未来未知领域的研究

但是结尾总结句还是看不明白
Besides, should we ever become so clever a species as to devise machines ( that can truly think for themselves and look out for their own well-being )--修饰machine,
then query whether these machines of the future would be "machines'' anymore.
我理解意思是不是: 我们是否能如此聪明发明能够自己思考的机器人, then , 这种机器是否还是"机器"了呢
但是这个句式结构不明白了 should ... then query , should 和query 都是做动词吧

原文如下:
This statement actually consists of a series of three related claims: (1) machines are tools of human minds; (2) human minds will always be superior to machines; and (3) it is because machines are human tools that human minds will always be superior to machines. While I concede the first claim, whether I agree with the other two claims depends partly on how one defines "superiority," and partly on how willing one is to humble oneself to the unknown future scenarios.

The statement is clearly accurate insofar as machines are tools of human minds. After all, would any machine even exist unless a human being invented it? Of course not. Moreover, I would be hard-pressed to think of any machine that cannot be described as a tool. Even machines designed to entertain or amuse us--for example, toy robots, cars and video games, and novelty items--are in fact tools, which their inventors and promoters use for engaging in commerce and the business of entertainment and amusement. And, the claim that a machine can be an end in itself, without purpose or utilitarian function for humans whatsoever, is dubious at best, since I cannot conjure up even a single example of any such machine. Thus when we develop any sort of machine we always have some sort of end in mind a purpose for that machine.

As for the statement's second claim, in certain respects machines are superior. We have devised machines that perform number-crunching and other rote cerebral tasks with greater accuracy and speed than human minds ever could. In fact, it is because we can devise machines that are superior in these respects that we devise them--as our tools--to begin with.
However, if one defines superiority not in terms of competence in per-forming rote tasks but rather in other ways, human minds are superior. Machines have no capacity for independent thought, for making judgments based on normative considerations, or for developing emotional responses to intellectual problems.

Up until now, the notion of human-made machines that develop the ability to think on their own, and to develop so-called "emotional intelligence," has been pure fiction. Besides, even in fiction we humans ultimately prevail over such machines--as in the cases of Frankenstein's monster and Hal, the computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Yet it seems presumptuous to assert  with confidence that humans  will  always maintain  their superior status over their machines. Recent advances in biotechnology, particularly in the area of human genome research, suggest that within the 21st Century we'll witness machines that can learn to think on their own, to repair and nurture themselves, to experience visceral sensations, and so forth. In other words, machines will soon exhibit the traits to which we humans attribute our own superiority.

In sum, because we devise machines in order that they may serve us, it is fair to characterize machines as "tools of human minds." And insofar as humans have the unique capacity for independent thought, subjective judgment, and emotional response, it also seems fair to claim superiority over our machines. Besides, should we ever become so clever a species as to devise machines that can truly think for themselves and look out for their own well-being, then query whether these machines of the future would be "machines'' anymore.