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.

[Confused]

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?

See, here is usually when you, QED, Furrowed Brow, and a few others jump so far above me you give my neck a kink just trying to look at what you imply. Is the initial product the nanobot? Is it the nanobot working at the atomic level to improve itself with organic material? If so, I still have to say that the initial product is inorganic, it is not living. The final product, despite the upgrades is still going to be AI, it will still be a robot. And if the final product is Matthew McConnaughey, then I really don't want to give it human rights because then I have to do more than #@%$#$# him. Too much trouble, even for him.

[Confused]

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.

Imagine the future in which life is considered substandard to technology. If what you propose was to occur, all life would be surpassed by newer, more effecient, more independent, superior models of technology. Gives the new "Battlestar Galactica" a whole new meaning.

[Metatron]

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?

See, here is usually when you, QED, Furrowed Brow, and a few others jump so far above me you give my neck a kink just trying to look at what you imply. Is the initial product the nanobot? Is it the nanobot working at the atomic level to improve itself with organic material?

Not necessarily. The nanobots could simply be the tools used at the direction of man to create our prospective entity. The final product in this example would be entirely organic and capable of sexual reproduction.

One could speculate about the existence of sentient "clouds" of nanobots but it's hard to imagine why an entity or entities of such awesome capabilities would want to limit itself by turning itself into an organic meat puppet. Such an entity would be capable of almost anything since they presumably would be capable of building more of themselves. Theoretically, they could transform entire planets with ease.

If so, I still have to say that the initial product is inorganic, it is not living. The final product, despite the upgrades is still going to be AI, it will still be a robot. And if the final product is Matthew McConnaughey, then I really don't want to give it human rights because then I have to do more than #@%$#$# him. Too much trouble, even for him.

So, I gather, being composed of organic molecules is the key element with you. So let's look at this from a moral/ethical level. Suppose we have an inorganic AI, a robot if you will. But suppose that this robot's programming is so sophisticated that it is self-aware, feels emotions, and values it's own existence. Can this robot be bought, sold, or discarded at will? Is it property or a person? An appliance or a slave? There may come a time when society will have to make this moral decision. What do you think?

[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.

Imagine the future in which life is considered substandard to technology. If what you propose was to occur, all life would be surpassed by newer, more effecient, more independent, superior models of technology. Gives the new "Battlestar Galactica" a whole new meaning.

Yes, in fact there are a fair number of futurists who believe that man will inevitably be transcended and replaced by artificially created life. The author Arthur C. Clarke of "2001: A Space Odyssey" fame I believe is one of them. They basically look upon it as the next logical step in the development of intelligence.

[Confused]

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?

See, here is usually when you, QED, Furrowed Brow, and a few others jump so far above me you give my neck a kink just trying to look at what you imply. Is the initial product the nanobot? Is it the nanobot working at the atomic level to improve itself with organic material?

Not necessarily. The nanobots could simply be the tools used at the direction of man to create our prospective entity. The final product in this example would be entirely organic and capable of sexual reproduction.

One could speculate about the existence of sentient "clouds" of nanobots but it's hard to imagine why an entity or entities of such awesome capabilities would want to limit itself by turning itself into an organic meat puppet. Such an entity would be capable of almost anything since they presumably would be capable of building more of themselves. Theoretically, they could transform entire planets with ease.

You realize your killing me right? Are we assuming then that the nanobots aren't part of the creation, rather they are the tool being used to manipulate organic material into a "being"? In such a case, then I would have to consider it life. Despite its origin, its mode of reproducing, etc... Life is still life. Life has just been recreated in a different form. But it hasn't violated any percieved rules of life. I wouldn't think anything less of it than I would had it been created in a test tube.

If so, I still have to say that the initial product is inorganic, it is not living. The final product, despite the upgrades is still going to be AI, it will still be a robot. And if the final product is Matthew McConnaughey, then I really don't want to give it human rights because then I have to do more than #@%$#$# him. Too much trouble, even for him.

So, I gather, being composed of organic molecules is the key element with you. So let's look at this from a moral/ethical level. Suppose we have an inorganic AI, a robot if you will. But suppose that this robot's programming is so sophisticated that it is self-aware, feels emotions, and values it's own existence. Can this robot be bought, sold, or discarded at will? Is it property or a person? An appliance or a slave? There may come a time when society will have to make this moral decision. What do you think?

UGGHHH. I hate this part. The strictly concrete side of me wants to say, despite their ability to "feel" and their self-awareness, they are still robots. How can I give it any more rights than the computer I am sitting in front of? Of course, the moral part of me says that anything that displays "awareness" and can "feel" should be afforded the same rights as any organism. That being said, I still wouldn't classify them as alive. You know those "race" boxes most forms want you to categorize yourself as, you know the hispanic, caucasian, etc.. This new form couldn't be considered life as we know it, so it would fall into the "other" box. I think it provides a strong case for a moral dilemma as to why we shouldn't do such a thing. But once again, the ability to do so, the ability to see it done is an overwhelming aphrodisiac. The possibilities are endless. Hmm, risks vs benefits. I don't know which is greater.

[Confused]

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.

Imagine the future in which life is considered substandard to technology. If what you propose was to occur, all life would be surpassed by newer, more efficient, more independent, superior models of technology. Gives the new "Battlestar Galactica" a whole new meaning.

Yes, in fact there are a fair number of futurists who believe that man will inevitably be transcended and replaced by artificially created life. The author Arthur C. Clarke of "2001: A Space Odyssey" fame I believe is one of them. They basically look upon it as the next logical step in the development of intelligence.

I have actually read that. You realize that usually those on this particular forum are usually quoting these books that I haven't even heard of let alone read. So this is pretty cool for me (LOL) .

I have to say that logically, it is the next step. Eventually, technology will go beyond the human programmers and the human race will likely either be considered substandard, unworthy of even worrying about, or will be extinguished by our own creation because humanity isn't one to sit back and accept being dethroned, we would fight to retain superiority. By this point, intelligent AI will already know this is human nature and the most logical way to deal with it is to eliminate it.


Hmmm, Perhaps there is something to the whole creator thing. Did we surpass our creator to become the top of the chain? Are we just perpetuating the continuous repetitive cycle of history.

[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?

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.

It isn't, however, an intelligent AI, it has the intelligence of a fly, it simply has a program telling it to survive and reproduce. Over a course of a million years or so, these robots would have had enough glitches in their programs accumulating to evolve into another animal.

And to confused on his organic materials thing, what if we met alien life that was made of different organic materials then ourselves, maybe a silicon life form. More than one combination of elements can produce a living being.

What is we met a life form that had evolved from mechanical nanobots?

[Metatron]

UGGHHH. I hate this part. The strictly concrete side of me wants to say, despite their ability to "feel" and their self-awareness, they are still robots. How can I give it any more rights than the computer I am sitting in front of? Of course, the moral part of me says that anything that displays "awareness" and can "feel" should be afforded the same rights as any organism. That being said, I still wouldn't classify them as alive. You know those "race" boxes most forms want you to categorize yourself as, you know the hispanic, caucasian, etc.. This new form couldn't be considered life as we know it, so it would fall into the "other" box. I think it provides a strong case for a moral dilemma as to why we shouldn't do such a thing. But once again, the ability to do so, the ability to see it done is an overwhelming aphrodisiac. The possibilities are endless. Hmm, risks vs benefits. I don't know which is greater.

So then the question is can you classify something as not living and still afford it legal rights because it is self-aware and possesses feelings? Is life defined as some level of organic chemical interaction that is capable of self-replication or is it something else? I think that society will have to address these issues, possibly even within our lifetimes.

[Confused]

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.

It isn't, however, an intelligent AI, it has the intelligence of a fly, it simply has a program telling it to survive and reproduce. Over a course of a million years or so, these robots would have had enough glitches in their programs accumulating to evolve into another animal.

And to confused on his organic materials thing, what if we met alien life that was made of different organic materials then ourselves, maybe a silicon life form. More than one combination of elements can produce a living being.

What is we met a life form that had evolved from mechanical nanobots?

Um, Confused is a her, not him. Your question still remains the same as Metatrons. Silicon is still organic. And I don't imply only human life. I am speaking of life in general, whatever it may encompass. But had it evolved from a foundation of nanobots that evolved, if it starts out non-life, the final product is still non-life.

[Confused]

UGGHHH. I hate this part. The strictly concrete side of me wants to say, despite their ability to "feel" and their self-awareness, they are still robots. How can I give it any more rights than the computer I am sitting in front of? Of course, the moral part of me says that anything that displays "awareness" and can "feel" should be afforded the same rights as any organism. That being said, I still wouldn't classify them as alive. You know those "race" boxes most forms want you to categorize yourself as, you know the hispanic, caucasian, etc.. This new form couldn't be considered life as we know it, so it would fall into the "other" box. I think it provides a strong case for a moral dilemma as to why we shouldn't do such a thing. But once again, the ability to do so, the ability to see it done is an overwhelming aphrodisiac. The possibilities are endless. Hmm, risks vs benefits. I don't know which is greater.

So then the question is can you classify something as not living and still afford it legal rights because it is self-aware and possesses feelings? Is life defined as some level of organic chemical interaction that is capable of self-replication or is it something else? I think that society will have to address these issues, possibly even within our lifetimes.

I think I could give it legal rights if it displayed characteristics of life even it it is non-living. If it has the capacity to "feel" then we, being the creator of this being, have a moral obligation to treat it as a citizen.

I think life is categorized based on life. Organic to organic. Not non-organic to organic. Despite how many improvement made to this non-organic model, it will still be non-organic. Just on non-organic materials on steroids.