I am not able to draw the distinction you are trying to make. The more we make machines, especially ones to interact with inputs from our world, the more easy it is to understand our bodies.
Correct, because there is no blueprint then we don't know about how the brains and neurons interact. But if there is a problem with a heart valve we know exactly where and why it failed.
I expect greater convergence in these fields, and as such I can't agree with you.
> But if there is a problem with a heart valve we know exactly where and why it failed.
I highly doubt that. Even for heart valves, which seem less complicated than plenty of other body parts (at first glance, I'm sure they are plenty complicated in detail), because they are comparatively mechanical. For example, Wikipedia says (with citation): "Causes of aortic insufficiency in the majority of cases are unknown, or idiopathic."
Try a kidney or something related to the nervous system next.
> The more we make machines, especially ones to interact with inputs from our world, the more easy it is to understand our bodies.
FWIW I am making machines, and the more I do, the more amazed I am about how intensely complicated our body in general and our nervous system specifically is.
Correct, because there is no blueprint then we don't know about how the brains and neurons interact. But if there is a problem with a heart valve we know exactly where and why it failed.
I expect greater convergence in these fields, and as such I can't agree with you.