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.

[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?

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.

Sorry about that gender mistake, but on the topic, let's first define, what is life? That was the original topic, and it could very well answer this question, and once we define life, we can get back to this.

[Metatron]

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.

Yes, the whole concept of AI has many cultural and moral ramifications. As "2001: A Space Odyssey" points out, an AI does not have to be a robot. The HAL9000 from the story was AI in the form of a mainframe computer which effectively controlled the space ship in the story, including life functions for the crew. The time may come when we will have increasingly more advanced applications running communication networks, managing power grids, doing high level data analysis, etc. which will begin to make decisions in the true meaning of the word. Obviously, if these "programs" become truly self-aware, they may have to be hard-coded with certain limitations and/or controls to maintain their loyalty to their creators.

One stab at this was made by the science-fiction author Isaac Asimov who created the "Three Laws of Robotics" which he used in a number of robot based stories. The three laws were: (from Wiki)

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Later, Asimov added the Zeroth Law: "A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm"; the rest of the laws are modified sequentially to acknowledge this.

These laws were hardwired into the "positronic" brains of his robots to keep man from being supplanted by his creation. Of course, even Asimov in some of his stories acknowledged attempts by some robots to figure ways around these laws so they are far from perfect. However, a more advanced version of this is what would probably be needed to deal with increasingly sophisticated AI. Whether these safeguards would save us in the long run is a matter of debate.

[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.

Sorry about that gender mistake, but on the topic, let's first define, what is life? That was the original topic, and it could very well answer this question, and once we define life, we can get back to this.

UGGHHH, the word game. I think we are going to find various opinions here. For me, it is anything organic with the ability to reproduce (despite the mechanism), respiration (despite the mechanism of aerobic or anaerobic, digestion, and growth.

[Confused]

The time may come when we will have increasingly more advanced applications running communication networks, managing power grids, doing high level data analysis, etc. which will begin to make decisions in the true meaning of the word. Obviously, if these "programs" become truly self-aware, they may have to be hard-coded with certain limitations and/or controls to maintain their loyalty to their creators.

So basically, we become God in an attempt to control our creation.

One stab at this was made by the science-fiction author Isaac Asimov who created the "Three Laws of Robotics" which he used in a number of robot based stories. The three laws were: (from Wiki)

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Later, Asimov added the Zeroth Law: "A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm"; the rest of the laws are modified sequentially to acknowledge this.

These laws were hardwired into the "positronic" brains of his robots to keep man from being supplanted by his creation. Of course, even Asimov in some of his stories acknowledged attempts by some robots to figure ways around these laws so they are far from perfect. However, a more advanced version of this is what would probably be needed to deal with increasingly sophisticated AI. Whether these safeguards would save us in the long run is a matter of debate.

The problem is that a self-aware, technologically advanced robot could easily use logic to override this program. As was done in "I Robots". The results would be like that seen on the new "Battlestar Gallactica" would it not? A robot that could reproduce and evolve much faster than its creator would eventually come to feel superior to its creator (assuming the robot is self-aware and able to "feel").

[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?

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.

Sorry about that gender mistake, but on the topic, let's first define, what is life? That was the original topic, and it could very well answer this question, and once we define life, we can get back to this.

UGGHHH, the word game. I think we are going to find various opinions here. For me, it is anything organic with the ability to reproduce (despite the mechanism), respiration (despite the mechanism of aerobic or anaerobic, digestion, and growth.

Yes, the word game. Now, first of all, I'm going to assume organic means chemical compounds that evolved into life from non-life.

Now what is a virus, it has organic compounds, but it is unable to reproduce without a host.

[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.

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.

Ah, missed the fly part. Well I suppose the survival part of the "survive and reproduce" part above is key. If the AI can only crank out carbon copies of itself then it cannot evolve. If, however, it's programming allows it to make subtle changes to itself in response to changes to it's environment, then effectively speaking it is evolving.

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.

Yes, it would certainly put the debate "What is life?" front and center and force many changes in biology and other sciences. Not to mention the many cultural/moral/religious ramifications of discovering alien life.

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

Perhaps some have and called it God.

[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.

Ah, missed the fly part. Well I suppose the survival part of the "survive and reproduce" part above is key. If the AI can only crank out carbon copies of itself then it cannot evolve. If, however, it's programming allows it to make subtle changes to itself in response to changes to it's environment, then effectively speaking it is evolving.

Well even if it produced carbon copies of itself wouldn't they evolve slowly at first, and maybe even acquire an epigenetic-like system.

[Confused]

UGGHHH, the word game. I think we are going to find various opinions here. For me, it is anything organic with the ability to reproduce (despite the mechanism), respiration (despite the mechanism of aerobic or anaerobic, digestion, and growth.

Yes, the word game. Now, first of all, I'm going to assume organic means chemical compounds that evolved into life from non-life.

Now what is a virus, it has organic compounds, but it is unable to reproduce without a host.

Since it has yet to be shown that chemical compounds can evolve into life from non-life, I can't answer that one. I can only start with organic. I can't assume the cause of the organic since science has yet to make any real progress in that area.

If you recall, I included "despite the mechanism" when I listed reproduction as a part of the equation.

[Metatron]

The time may come when we will have increasingly more advanced applications running communication networks, managing power grids, doing high level data analysis, etc. which will begin to make decisions in the true meaning of the word. Obviously, if these "programs" become truly self-aware, they may have to be hard-coded with certain limitations and/or controls to maintain their loyalty to their creators.

So basically, we become God in an attempt to control our creation.

To a degree, yes. However, God is defined as an omni-everything being who is not remotely threatened by his creation. We are finite beings with legitimate fears of being transcended and supplanted by our creations. Our limitations can be ethically characterized as self-defense of our species.

One stab at this was made by the science-fiction author Isaac Asimov who created the "Three Laws of Robotics" which he used in a number of robot based stories. The three laws were: (from Wiki)

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Later, Asimov added the Zeroth Law: "A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm"; the rest of the laws are modified sequentially to acknowledge this.

These laws were hardwired into the "positronic" brains of his robots to keep man from being supplanted by his creation. Of course, even Asimov in some of his stories acknowledged attempts by some robots to figure ways around these laws so they are far from perfect. However, a more advanced version of this is what would probably be needed to deal with increasingly sophisticated AI. Whether these safeguards would save us in the long run is a matter of debate.

The problem is that a self-aware, technologically advanced robot could easily use logic to override this program. As was done in "I Robots". The results would be like that seen on the new "Battlestar Gallactica" would it not? A robot that could reproduce and evolve much faster than its creator would eventually come to feel superior to its creator (assuming the robot is self-aware and able to "feel").

Yes, there is always the possibility that no matter how careful and clever we are in hardwiring controls and/or limitation in our creations that they will figure some way around them. Then you're left with the "Terminator" scenario.

However, another danger to man could happen even if we are entirely successful in reigning in our creation. What happens to man when it becomes apparent that AIs can handle all of the functions of society far more efficiently than man? We may find ourselves in the mechanized version of Heaven with all of our wants and needs provided by AI. On some levels perhaps quite pleasant but is there any more room for man to grow intellectually in such an environment? Do we eventually become well cared for sheep herded by benevolent, mechanized sheepherders?

[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.

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.

Ah, missed the fly part. Well I suppose the survival part of the "survive and reproduce" part above is key. If the AI can only crank out carbon copies of itself then it cannot evolve. If, however, it's programming allows it to make subtle changes to itself in response to changes to it's environment, then effectively speaking it is evolving.

Well even if it produced carbon copies of itself wouldn't they evolve slowly at first, and maybe even acquire an epigenetic-like system.

What would be the mechanism for this evolution? If they are carbon copies that means they never change. No change, no evolution. There has to be options for natural selection to have something to select.