Posted: 4/24/2009 12:53:14 AM EDT
|
Not to hijack GreatDanes thread http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=864625 But reminded me of an argument I got into with a friend a couple years ago.
Is there life beyond Earth? The discussion started after the Mars Pathfinder/Sojourner mission. Somehow talking about the mission to Mars, the discussion turned towards life elsewhere. My side: Well, I guess you could now say that intelligent life is now on the planet next door. We put it there, yeah maybe its not a living animal / creature but none the less ,its life. His side: No its not, it doesn't breathe air, it can't communicate, it doesn't move on its own. Its not life. It doesn't have a brain, It can't reproduce by sex. It doesn't have blood or organs. Its just a stupid R/C robot. My side: What is life? Many objects are considered to have life, a battery, an engine. Even objects like food have a life. Does a plant or tree have a brain? They can't move own their own. Do they have lungs? Do they have blood or organs?Trees don't have sex, but reproduce. If Pathfinder/Sojourner had materials to build new rovers to replace them when their life was to expire, would you then say they are reproducing? His side: No, just because a stupid robot could build another robot doesn't mean its reproducing. Oh, does an engine breathe air? Does it exhale? Does it need to eat? Does it need water to survive It can't die, can it think on its own? Can it reproduce? My side: Actually it can do all of those things, except for having sex with another engine and making baby engines. It does breathe air and does need to eat ( fuel ). It does need water or it will overheat and die for sure. His side: Life has to be organic, it can not be made of metal and plastic. Living creatures do not have plastic or metal plain and simple. It has to be able to live with other creatures. It has to have blood and organs to be alive or have life. This debate continued for an hour or so before religion got into the mix and I wisely backed out and said he was right. So what say ARFCOM, discuss. |
|
Life has to be organic, it can not be made of metal and plastic. Living creatures do not have plastic or metal plain and simple. It has to be able to live with other creatures. It has to have blood and organs to be alive or have life. What does that even mean? We contain metal. Our blood uses Iron (hemoglobin) to transport Oxygen. Plants contain plastics. Latex is a natural plastic created by some plants to help seal wounds to their bark. My definition of life: Must be able to reproduce Must be able to harness naturally occurring energy Must be able to otherwise sustain itself using naturally occurring materials By this simple definition a robot capable of building other robots and operating under solar power would be "life". The robot would need to be able to truly build copies of itself from natural resources though. Building a set and limited number of copies of itself from a finite and pre prepared supply of components does not constitute reproduction. A simple engine is not alive, nor is the mars rover. MAX |
|
sorry, but your friend is right. Maybe when we are fielding unique sentient androids who are curious about their existence and strive to become more human we can re-evaluate the issue.
the whole sci-fi type "when is A.I. life" question is a tricky one, but nothing we currently have comes close to making the "artificial life" issue applicable. |
|
Quoted: sorry, but your friend is right. Maybe when we are fielding unique sentient androids who are curious about their existence and strive to become more human we can re-evaluate the issue. the whole sci-fi type "when is A.I. life" question is a tricky one, but nothing we currently have comes close to making the "artificial life" issue applicable. You're talking about "intelligence" not life. Those are two different criteria. A simple desktop computer can be programmed with more intelligence than most of the living creatures on earth. They are not self-aware (sentient) yet and may very well never be but they can still "think" more than animals (chickens for instance) pretty easily. MAX |
|
Quoted:
Life has to be organic, it can not be made of metal and plastic. Livingcreatures do not have plastic or metal plain and simple. It has to beable to live with other creatures. It has to have blood and organs tobe alive or have life.
What does that even mean? We contain metal. Our blood uses Iron (hemoglobin) to transport Oxygen. Plants contain plastics. Latex is a natural plastic created by some plants to help seal wounds to their bark. My definition of life: Must be able to reproduce Must be able to harness naturally occurring energy Must be able to otherwise sustain itself using naturally occurring materials By this simple definition a robot capable of building other robots and operating under solar power would be "life". The robot would need to be able to truly build copies of itself from natural resources though. Building a set and limited number of copies of itself from a finite and pre prepared supply of components does not constitute reproduction. A simple engine is not alive, nor is the mars rover. MAX I agree that the rover or a combustable engine isn't alive or have a physical life as determined by modern science but, my point was that it doesn't have to have organs or blood to be considered life. An artificial heart can keep a person alive and doesn't have a cellular structure. Tissues and organs can be grown in a test tube, etc. Maybe in the near future we may have the technology to make this possible |
|
Life must be organic.
Could a civilization of robots developed with AI as complex as life's build its own civilization? Possibly. Could it interact with its environment and develop communities? Sure, in a sense. Maybe it could gather its own source of energy for "survival" and create new generations of robots. It's "possible" provided that our AI gets that sophisticated. But it will never be life. It lacks genetic code. Life is a product of millions (if not billions) of years of evolution and change in genes. And as a side note, I think there's life on other planets. Statistically, it makes sense. I highly doubt we'll meet anything intelligent ever though because that's an improbability in itself. |
|
Quoted: Life must be organic. Could a civilization of robots developed with AI as complex as life's build its own civilization? Possibly. Could it interact with its environment and develop communities? Sure, in a sense. Maybe it could gather its own source of energy for "survival" and create new generations of robots. It's "possible" provided that our AI gets that sophisticated. But it will never be life. It lacks genetic code. Life is a product of millions (if not billions) of years of evolution and change in genes. And as a side note, I think there's life on other planets. Statistically, it makes sense. I highly doubt we'll meet anything intelligent ever though because that's an improbability in itself. Another post that is more about "intelligence" than life. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Life must be organic. Could a civilization of robots developed with AI as complex as life's build its own civilization? Possibly. Could it interact with its environment and develop communities? Sure, in a sense. Maybe it could gather its own source of energy for "survival" and create new generations of robots. It's "possible" provided that our AI gets that sophisticated. But it will never be life. It lacks genetic code. Life is a product of millions (if not billions) of years of evolution and change in genes. And as a side note, I think there's life on other planets. Statistically, it makes sense. I highly doubt we'll meet anything intelligent ever though because that's an improbability in itself. Another post that is more about "intelligence" than life. If life is not intelligence, then what is it? If you want something as basic as a robot to simply gather energy and create more robots, that requires some form of intelligence. Robots will never have ANY source of intelligence other than what is programmed into them. What do we have? From humans to the most basic bacterium... we have genetic code that instructs us to do these things. These instincts for survival, for creating new generations, and all else we do is encoded in our genes. It all boils down to that. Robots lack this genetic information. Therefore, their instructions to "LIVE" must come from a programed intelligence. Furthermore, if they cannot adapt to their environment––- they will cease to exist. Therefore, this robotic being must be able to learn to adapt itself. It is at a disadvantage because organic life doesn't even have to try that hard. Successful genetic recombination that enables a species to further itself is what allows them to continue existing. Natural selection will work because of genes. Robots may be able to "live" in the laziest sense of defining that word. But they will never be subject to the same rules or guidelines that forge the existence of all organic matter. |
|
Quoted:
Life must be organic. Could a civilization of robots developed with AI as complex as life's build its own civilization? Possibly. Could it interact with its environment and develop communities? Sure, in a sense. Maybe it could gather its own source of energy for "survival" and create new generations of robots. It's "possible" provided that our AI gets that sophisticated. But it will never be life. It lacks genetic code. Life is a product of millions (if not billions) of years of evolution and change in genes. And as a side note, I think there's life on other planets. Statistically, it makes sense. I highly doubt we'll meet anything intelligent ever though because that's an improbability in itself. Metals are organic. If robots could create or replace parts using molecular biology, then once a copy of itself is made it could then teach the new robot what it needs to do before the old copy expires. Last part to the equation is what would give them life the energy or lifeforce? Technology to create artificial life is a new concept, maybe in 50 yrs who knows whats possible. Much like space and the universe, I sometime get overwhelmed thinking about this stuff. On a side note, where the Borg considered to be alive? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: If life is not intelligence, then what is it?Quoted: Another post that is more about "intelligence" than life.Life must be organic. Could a civilization of robots developed with AI as complex as life's build its own civilization? Possibly. Could it interact with its environment and develop communities? Sure, in a sense. Maybe it could gather its own source of energy for "survival" and create new generations of robots. It's "possible" provided that our AI gets that sophisticated. But it will never be life. It lacks genetic code. Life is a product of millions (if not billions) of years of evolution and change in genes. And as a side note, I think there's life on other planets. Statistically, it makes sense. I highly doubt we'll meet anything intelligent ever though because that's an improbability in itself. If you want something as basic as a robot to simply gather energy and create more robots, that requires some form of intelligence. Robots will never have ANY source of intelligence other than what is programmed into them. What do we have? From humans to the most basic bacterium... we have genetic code that instructs us to do these things. These instincts for survival, for creating new generations, and all else we do is encoded in our genes. It all boils down to that. Robots lack this genetic information. Therefore, their instructions to "LIVE" must come from a programed intelligence. Furthermore, if they cannot adapt to their environment––- they will cease to exist. Therefore, this robotic being must be able to learn to adapt itself. It is at a disadvantage because organic life doesn't even have to try that hard. Successful genetic recombination that enables a species to further itself is what allows them to continue existing. Natural selection will work because of genes. Robots may be able to "live" in the laziest sense of defining that word. But they will never be subject to the same rules or guidelines that forge the existence of all organic matter. Programming the "survival instincts" of simple animals would not be all that difficult even today. I agree that it would need to have some form of program set, but it need not be all that complicated. A "robo-chicken" or "robo-tree" would not be a stretch of the imagination. Life need not have the ability to build a civilization or even to communicate with other life. Bacteria is alive. As far as ceasing to exist if they cannot adapt, that is a trait common to all life right now. |
|
Quoted:
Programming the "survival instincts" of simple animals would not be all that difficult even today. I agree that it would need to have some form of program set, but it need not be all that complicated. A "robo-chicken" or "robo-tree" would not be a stretch of the imagination. Life need not have the ability to build a civilization or even to communicate with other life. Bacteria is alive. As far as ceasing to exist if they cannot adapt, that is a trait common to all life right now. Robochicken... That does what? Creates self-replicating progeny and then "dies" by ceasing to exist? That's hardly life. Life is a constant development and reaction to environment. Evolution and natural selection are the mechanisms by which life is propagated. These will not apply to robotic beings. Robots can mimic life. But they will never be subject to the same laws because they do not have genetic information that constantly develops and adjusts so that chemical and biological processes can continue to happen. To make robots fit the mold would be to increase their intelligence to a point that they can continue gathering intelligence and adapt on their own. I do not mean AI in the sense of "OMGWTF ANDROID." Simply AI that can learn to further its "species" or whatever you want to call it. And clearly, they would need instruction/motivation to live. However, this is not life. No matter how you want to look at it. It's simply an image of life. At best, it's mocking life. Quoted:
Metals are organic. If robots could create or replace parts using molecular biology, then once a copy of itself is made it could then teach the new robot what it needs to do before the old copy expires. Last part to the equation is what would give them life the energy or lifeforce? Technology to create artificial life is a new concept, maybe in 50 yrs who knows whats possible. Much like space and the universe, I sometime get overwhelmed thinking about this stuff. On a side note, where the Borg considered to be alive? Organic in the sense of carbon-based. I urge you not to use such generalizations on the defining "life." Without observing both the macroscopic aspects (interaction with environment/evolution) of life AND the microscopic (biological and chemical interactions), you will not understand life nearly to its entirety. If your definition of life is simply what's listed above as max defined... meaning it can reproduce and collect on energy... then sure... it's life. Call it what you want. But it is NOTHING like the rest of life when you dissect all of the characteristics that make life... well... life. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Programming the "survival instincts" of simple animals would not be all that difficult even today. I agree that it would need to have some form of program set, but it need not be all that complicated. A "robo-chicken" or "robo-tree" would not be a stretch of the imagination. Life need not have the ability to build a civilization or even to communicate with other life. Bacteria is alive. As far as ceasing to exist if they cannot adapt, that is a trait common to all life right now. Robochicken... That does what? Creates self-replicating progeny and then "dies" by ceasing to exist? That's hardly life. Life is a constant development and reaction to environment. Evolution and natural selection are the mechanisms by which life is propagated. These will not apply to robotic beings. Robots can mimic life. But they will never be subject to the same laws because they do not have genetic information that constantly develops and adjusts so that chemical and biological processes can continue to happen. To make robots fit the mold would be to increase their intelligence to a point that they can continue gathering intelligence and adapt on their own. I do not mean AI in the sense of "OMGWTF ANDROID." Simply AI that can learn to further its "species" or whatever you want to call it. And clearly, they would need instruction/motivation to live. However, this is not life. No matter how you want to look at it. It's simply an image of life. At best, it's mocking life. Quoted:
Metals are organic. If robots could create or replace parts using molecular biology, then once a copy of itself is made it could then teach the new robot what it needs to do before the old copy expires. Last part to the equation is what would give them life the energy or lifeforce? Technology to create artificial life is a new concept, maybe in 50 yrs who knows whats possible. Much like space and the universe, I sometime get overwhelmed thinking about this stuff. On a side note, where the Borg considered to be alive? Organic in the sense of carbon-based. I urge you not to use such generalizations on the defining "life." Without observing both the macroscopic aspects (interaction with environment/evolution) of life AND the microscopic (biological and chemical interactions), you will not understand life nearly to its entirety. If your definition of life is simply what's listed above as max defined... meaning it can reproduce and collect on energy... then sure... it's life. Call it what you want. But it is NOTHING like the rest of life when you dissect all of the characteristics that make life... well... life. You are right, I'm trying to define " life " with a broad brush and stroke. We as humans most likely will never create life as we know it. Artificial life maybe but physical life or lifeforms no. |