What makes life?

[Cryopyre]

WHat makes life life? What is the definition of a living organism.

How about the virus debate, is something like a virus considered a living organism, it can reproduce, but it needs the aid of others.

How about the must basic life form that is not under debate, a single celled organism. It has no intellect, it is just a repeating clock of chemical reactions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VxQuPBX1_U

here is a video that talks about us in the same way, simple chemical reactions.

Lastly, if we constructed a robot that could recreate itself without any intervention from other organism, would that constitute as life?


This may appear jumbled, so sorry, but these questions have bothered and confused me for quite a while.

[QED]

This is why transhumanism works best. We have a fallable human being, who although can understand, grasp and learn ideas, is still made outdated and subjected to harm by his body. Eliminate disease, unnecessary pain and constant requirements of the human body, and create the elite human being.

humanity corrects the problem, and evolves within it's own technological abilities.

Sure, this much could itself carry the label "soul". If I read you right, once we strip away all the distractions that are currently necessary for our continued survival, what (if anything) is left could be the human soul. I personally doubt if there is anything left once all the house-keeping has been taken care of. What ultimately gets us out of bed in the morning is, I think, our plans. And typically these are related to the "house-keeping". We might imagine that our quest for the origins of the cosmos represent some ultimate and pure essence of humanity, but I can't help seeing it as a logical extension of a pragmatic tendency that has assisted our survival through gaining an understandings of the various sub-units of the cosmos.[/i]

[Confused]

WHat makes life life? What is the definition of a living organism.

How about the virus debate, is something like a virus considered a living organism, it can reproduce, but it needs the aid of others.

How about the must basic life form that is not under debate, a single celled organism. It has no intellect, it is just a repeating clock of chemical reactions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VxQuPBX1_U

here is a video that talks about us in the same way, simple chemical reactions.

Lastly, if we constructed a robot that could recreate itself without any intervention from other organism, would that constitute as life?


This may appear jumbled, so sorry, but these questions have bothered and confused me for quite a while.

I think reproduction is a characteristic needed for life, however, it isn't the only one. If we constructed a robot that could recreate itself without any intervention, it would still be a robot, simply because man created it and programmed it to do so. Even if we looked at this robot as being a state or the art AI, it would still require the input of data to begin its increase in knowledge.

All that aside, the fact is, you are taking non-living resources to create an AI robot. Regardless of what its capabilities are, it is still non-living material.

[sledheavy]

WHat makes life life? What is the definition of a living organism.

How about the virus debate, is something like a virus considered a living organism, it can reproduce, but it needs the aid of others.

How about the must basic life form that is not under debate, a single celled organism. It has no intellect, it is just a repeating clock of chemical reactions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VxQuPBX1_U

here is a video that talks about us in the same way, simple chemical reactions.

Lastly, if we constructed a robot that could recreate itself without any intervention from other organism, would that constitute as life?


This may appear jumbled, so sorry, but these questions have bothered and confused me for quite a while.

I think reproduction is a characteristic needed for life, however, it isn't the only one. If we constructed a robot that could recreate itself without any intervention, it would still be a robot, simply because man created it and programmed it to do so. Even if we looked at this robot as being a state or the art AI, it would still require the input of data to begin its increase in knowledge.

All that aside, the fact is, you are taking non-living resources to create an AI robot. Regardless of what its capabilities are, it is still non-living material.

that was discribed in the movie....blue gender. Robots are capable of reproduction and they made it seem like this was a whole new revolution about to take place.

[sledheavy]

On an irrevalent side note, there's a movie called rodger dodger you all need to see if you haven't. It brings to mind the first 10 minutes of the film where rodger and his co workers are having a discussion on gender evolution. Basically stating that women only need men to lift heavy things, and then after mental telepathy and reproduction without men will men be outdated and no longer needed. lol. It's arguable, but it's funny as hell.

[Metatron]

WHat makes life life? What is the definition of a living organism.

How about the virus debate, is something like a virus considered a living organism, it can reproduce, but it needs the aid of others.

How about the must basic life form that is not under debate, a single celled organism. It has no intellect, it is just a repeating clock of chemical reactions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VxQuPBX1_U

here is a video that talks about us in the same way, simple chemical reactions.

Lastly, if we constructed a robot that could recreate itself without any intervention from other organism, would that constitute as life?


This may appear jumbled, so sorry, but these questions have bothered and confused me for quite a while.

I think reproduction is a characteristic needed for life, however, it isn't the only one. If we constructed a robot that could recreate itself without any intervention, it would still be a robot, simply because man created it and programmed it to do so. Even if we looked at this robot as being a state or the art AI, it would still require the input of data to begin its increase in knowledge.

All that aside, the fact is, you are taking non-living resources to create an AI robot. Regardless of what its capabilities are, it is still non-living material.

What if the AI is self-aware, is capable of acquiring its own information and learning/innovating based on this knowledge, and is capable of reproducing itself? Aside from be constructed of inorganic matter (and even that might be correctable over time), why would this entity not qualify as alive?

[Confused]

WHat makes life life? What is the definition of a living organism.

How about the virus debate, is something like a virus considered a living organism, it can reproduce, but it needs the aid of others.

How about the must basic life form that is not under debate, a single celled organism. It has no intellect, it is just a repeating clock of chemical reactions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VxQuPBX1_U

here is a video that talks about us in the same way, simple chemical reactions.

Lastly, if we constructed a robot that could recreate itself without any intervention from other organism, would that constitute as life?


This may appear jumbled, so sorry, but these questions have bothered and confused me for quite a while.

I think reproduction is a characteristic needed for life, however, it isn't the only one. If we constructed a robot that could recreate itself without any intervention, it would still be a robot, simply because man created it and programmed it to do so. Even if we looked at this robot as being a state or the art AI, it would still require the input of data to begin its increase in knowledge.

All that aside, the fact is, you are taking non-living resources to create an AI robot. Regardless of what its capabilities are, it is still non-living material.

What if the AI is self-aware, is capable of acquiring its own information and learning/innovating based on this knowledge, and is capable of reproducing itself? Aside from be constructed of inorganic matter (and even that might be correctable over time), why would this entity not qualify as alive?

Has it been proven that life can evolve from non-life yet?

Metal is still metal. Wires are still wires. Programs are still programs. Despite the possibility of it being self aware and/or learning etc... It still will be hardware. Now, if that robut is an exact replica of Matthew McConaughay, then perhaps my view might change

[Cryopyre]

So would this robot be able to evolve? I've heard of books that address this question, and it is very interesting, after all this machine that has the intelligence of, let's say, a fly, and this machine was able to reproduce, would it evolve a higher intelligence over the course of millions of years just as man did?

Then, if this potential for intelligence exists, does the ability to evolve then mean that it is alive?

[Cryopyre]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invincible

Here is one book about evolution in machines, another is Crabs on the Island.

[Metatron]

I think reproduction is a characteristic needed for life, however, it isn't the only one. If we constructed a robot that could recreate itself without any intervention, it would still be a robot, simply because man created it and programmed it to do so. Even if we looked at this robot as being a state or the art AI, it would still require the input of data to begin its increase in knowledge.

All that aside, the fact is, you are taking non-living resources to create an AI robot. Regardless of what its capabilities are, it is still non-living material.

What if the AI is self-aware, is capable of acquiring its own information and learning/innovating based on this knowledge, and is capable of reproducing itself? Aside from be constructed of inorganic matter (and even that might be correctable over time), why would this entity not qualify as alive?

Has it been proven that life can evolve from non-life yet?

Were this to occur, might it not BE the proof that life can evolve from non-life?

Metal is still metal. Wires are still wires. Programs are still programs. Despite the possibility of it being self aware and/or learning etc... It still will be hardware. Now, if that robut is an exact replica of Matthew McConaughay, then perhaps my view might change

Why would the fact that inorganic materials were used give you pause? Would it be important to you if organic molecules were used in the construction? What if we used nanobots that are capable of working at the atomic level of construction to make an entirely organic entity capable of independent thought and intellectual growth as well as the ability to reproduce sexually. Would this be a living being despite not having been born in the conventional sense and having been the result of technology? If so, would it qualify as a sentient being deserving of the rights of humans or is it a product which can be used or discarded at will by its owner?

[Metatron]

So would this robot be able to evolve? I've heard of books that address this question, and it is very interesting, after all this machine that has the intelligence of, let's say, a fly, and this machine was able to reproduce, would it evolve a higher intelligence over the course of millions of years just as man did?

Then, if this potential for intelligence exists, does the ability to evolve then mean that it is alive?

It probably wouldn't evolve perse because it wouldn't need to. An intelligent AI would be capable of designing improved versions of itself, effectively leapfrogging evolution by thousands or even millions of years.