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.
What makes life?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Metatron
- Guru
- Posts: 2165
- Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 12:32 pm
- Location: Houston, Texas
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: What makes life?
Post #2Certainly the last issue, the possibility of creating self-replicating artificial intelligence, could very well be an issue that man will have to deal with at some point in the future. And it has many implications philosophical, religious, and legal in nature.Cryopyre wrote: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.
If man succeeds in creating an AI that is self-aware and capable of reproducing itself, is it alive and if not, why not? What are the religious consequence of a life form that was not created directly by God? Can a self aware AI be owned by it's creator or is that slavery? What is the legal status of an AI?
A lot of questions that a future society may have to wrestle with.
-
The Persnickety Platypus
- Guru
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 11:03 pm
Post #3
Does there really exist a definite boundary between inanimate matter and "life"?
There is no inherent difference between the chemicals that make up a human being and, say, a rock. Both are made of atoms, both undergo reactions, and both even share some of the same molecular building blocks. The only real difference between the two is the vast network of chemical reactions that occur within a human.
The discovery of viruses should have been the scientific community's first clue that their entire basic understanding of "life" is severely flawed.
It is rediculous to seperate a virus and a simple bacterium on the basis of some inherent difference. There is none, a bacterium is simply more complex; it's chemicals undergo more reactions.
The focus here should not be whether this virus or this robot is alive or not. The focus should be how active/inert they are in comparison to other organisms/forms of matter.
The way I see it, the Earth (hell, the entire universe) is really just one big interconnected, "living" mass (with parts of it more "living" than the rest).
There is no inherent difference between the chemicals that make up a human being and, say, a rock. Both are made of atoms, both undergo reactions, and both even share some of the same molecular building blocks. The only real difference between the two is the vast network of chemical reactions that occur within a human.
The discovery of viruses should have been the scientific community's first clue that their entire basic understanding of "life" is severely flawed.
It is rediculous to seperate a virus and a simple bacterium on the basis of some inherent difference. There is none, a bacterium is simply more complex; it's chemicals undergo more reactions.
The focus here should not be whether this virus or this robot is alive or not. The focus should be how active/inert they are in comparison to other organisms/forms of matter.
The way I see it, the Earth (hell, the entire universe) is really just one big interconnected, "living" mass (with parts of it more "living" than the rest).
Post #4
I have to agree with that one persnickety. I had a long drawn out argument in Science class about the classification of viruses and said the same thing, they simply undergo chemical reactions, just less of them.
Still, on the same line, if we're going to say there is no line between life and un-life (?) then what constitutes consciousness. What separates me from me, and you from you, what makes us not a whole combined consciousness if we're not special chemical reactions? I honestly have no answers here.
Still, on the same line, if we're going to say there is no line between life and un-life (?) then what constitutes consciousness. What separates me from me, and you from you, what makes us not a whole combined consciousness if we're not special chemical reactions? I honestly have no answers here.
-
McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #5
Humans like to categorize things. This one is blue, that one is green. Biology is not always accommodating to this human tendency. When it gets down to viruses, the line between life and non-life seems a bit fuzzy.Cryopyre wrote:I have to agree with that one persnickety. I had a long drawn out argument in Science class about the classification of viruses and said the same thing, they simply undergo chemical reactions, just less of them.
Still, on the same line, if we're going to say there is no line between life and un-life (?) then what constitutes consciousness. What separates me from me, and you from you, what makes us not a whole combined consciousness if we're not special chemical reactions? I honestly have no answers here.
The simple materialist answer to your question is that your consciousness is a product of your brain. We have separate brains, therefore we have separate consciousnesses. When our brains cease to function, our consciousness ends. No one has shown me any evidence that there is any more to it than that.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
Post #6
I understand your plight. I think consciousness only becomes a problem if we assume that it can't be manifested by functionally equivalent configurations of atoms. For example, if we made an atom-by-atom (in identical quantum states) copy of you, what grounds would we have for believing it not to be conscious even if it started talking to us? Likewise, just because all our half-baked attempts at AI have failed to deliver something we would consider to be conscious -- why should this influence us into believing there's a supernatural (non-technological) dimension to living things? Surely this could only be concluded at this early stage if we were able to identify a principle which prevents the manifestation of consciousness -- but in order to do so would seem to require an understanding of consciousness. For this reason I think it has to remain an open question -- certainly not one to be terminated by resorting to arbitrary supernatural explanations.Cryopyre wrote:Still, on the same line, if we're going to say there is no line between life and un-life (?) then what constitutes consciousness. What separates me from me, and you from you, what makes us not a whole combined consciousness if we're not special chemical reactions? I honestly have no answers here.
Post #7
lol, a male and a female make life. At least so far.
I agree with the stanley kubrick/ out there, idealism on robots. So far the science channel has done well to reassure it's audience that robots will be handicapped of their jobs and won't function without human involvement.
However, I see some idiot eventually creating life someday be it organic or mechanical. The fact of the matter is, creationism through the human mind could lead to a new race which is far more perfect than human beings. But might we be recognized in doing so thousands of years later? Probably not. If history is lost, we could very well turn up as a footnote in the human evolutionary process.
But this makes me think of that movie A.I. Which if I could give an award for most random movie of all time, it'd probably go to that particular movie.
Long story short,*(spoiler alert), the movie ends where aliens land on the icecube known as planet earth many, many years later and find robots that we created. They're actually impressed we put so much love and detail into our creations and call us a magnificent race.
But that would be WAY far from now.
I would hope that the most simplistic and most moderate solution to life, would be creating that ghost in the shell 'esque world where robots are dumb helpers and we're all paying off our prosthetic bodies.
Humans will be cheap for hire and probably jobless, and the robot at the burger king will be getting my order wrong regardless.
It just doesn't work.
If we create an intelligent life, we subject it to our socially mundane world of problems, and segregation will still arise regardless of how intelligent these beings are.
For example I was thinking of this yesterday:
We want to demonstrate our human capabilities through one of the true human art forms. So we create a robot that was intended to be the best singer of all time. It could hit every note, bridge every sound with perfection, and in the end, it commits suicide. And why?
Although it can demonstrate a function, it can illustrate through sound the essence of human life, it in turn finds itself only capable of illustrating something it doesn't have.
Just as we encompass the idea of a soul, so must our creation. It has to, or I don't see it surviving. This is one of the backwards dilemmas creationism presents. Because a body without the idea of a soul would be just as equal without a heart or mind to function equally from a spiritual standpoint. And most religions would probably do a fine job at pointing that out.
We really wouldn't create a true form of life, but rather a spiritual amputee. At least that's something to think about.
But regardless of that idea, I don't see life being created without some kind of distinct catch.
I agree with the stanley kubrick/ out there, idealism on robots. So far the science channel has done well to reassure it's audience that robots will be handicapped of their jobs and won't function without human involvement.
However, I see some idiot eventually creating life someday be it organic or mechanical. The fact of the matter is, creationism through the human mind could lead to a new race which is far more perfect than human beings. But might we be recognized in doing so thousands of years later? Probably not. If history is lost, we could very well turn up as a footnote in the human evolutionary process.
But this makes me think of that movie A.I. Which if I could give an award for most random movie of all time, it'd probably go to that particular movie.
Long story short,*(spoiler alert), the movie ends where aliens land on the icecube known as planet earth many, many years later and find robots that we created. They're actually impressed we put so much love and detail into our creations and call us a magnificent race.
But that would be WAY far from now.
I would hope that the most simplistic and most moderate solution to life, would be creating that ghost in the shell 'esque world where robots are dumb helpers and we're all paying off our prosthetic bodies.
Humans will be cheap for hire and probably jobless, and the robot at the burger king will be getting my order wrong regardless.
It just doesn't work.
If we create an intelligent life, we subject it to our socially mundane world of problems, and segregation will still arise regardless of how intelligent these beings are.
For example I was thinking of this yesterday:
We want to demonstrate our human capabilities through one of the true human art forms. So we create a robot that was intended to be the best singer of all time. It could hit every note, bridge every sound with perfection, and in the end, it commits suicide. And why?
Although it can demonstrate a function, it can illustrate through sound the essence of human life, it in turn finds itself only capable of illustrating something it doesn't have.
Just as we encompass the idea of a soul, so must our creation. It has to, or I don't see it surviving. This is one of the backwards dilemmas creationism presents. Because a body without the idea of a soul would be just as equal without a heart or mind to function equally from a spiritual standpoint. And most religions would probably do a fine job at pointing that out.
We really wouldn't create a true form of life, but rather a spiritual amputee. At least that's something to think about.
But regardless of that idea, I don't see life being created without some kind of distinct catch.
-
The Persnickety Platypus
- Guru
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 11:03 pm
Post #8
I'd say the answer is not much different. Consciousness (unless someone can ever uncover some non-material, "spiritual" component) is most likely the sum of all our sensory input.Still, on the same line, if we're going to say there is no line between life and un-life (?) then what constitutes consciousness. What separates me from me, and you from you, what makes us not a whole combined consciousness if we're not special chemical reactions? I honestly have no answers here.
Every organism is conscious to some degree. Some are only conscious enough to determine light from dark, ect. Others, as you know, have a vast enough perception to grapple with such abstract questions as the OP.
I doubt whether these conclusions will ever win much popular appeal, of course. Many people won't want to let go of the idea of consciousness as some special trait consigned to only "superior" organisms (ie themselves).
Post #9
I'm not sure I've grasped what you're saying here; in reality, isn't our "soul" just a popular label for the product generated by the peculiar network of atomic structures that compose our brains/minds? In amongst all the spaghetti reside ideas, plans, likes, dislikes, sound and video recordings - any one of which can be erased by an unfortunately placed blood-clot.sledheavy wrote:Just as we encompass the idea of a soul, so must our creation. It has to, or I don't see it surviving. This is one of the backwards dilemmas creationism presents. Because a body without the idea of a soul would be just as equal without a heart or mind to function equally from a spiritual standpoint. And most religions would probably do a fine job at pointing that out.
We really wouldn't create a true form of life, but rather a spiritual amputee. At least that's something to think about.
Post #10
I suppose from an empiricists point of view yes. The idea and the concept of the soul has been apparent through many outside cultures, as is the mere idea of the afterlife. Intelligent life from a human standpoint would also reflect what humans believe is ideal in mind. So in assuming that the cognitive abilities of this creation will transcend, and someday surpass the human quality, it would still encounter fallible, human conditions. Such as Ayn Rands invincible robot, which is dubbed perfect by design and infallible to cirustance, it still cannot attain the ability to feel, or emote because the rest of the world is fallible.QED wrote:I'm not sure I've grasped what you're saying here; in reality, isn't our "soul" just a popular label for the product generated by the peculiar network of atomic structures that compose our brains/minds? In amongst all the spaghetti reside ideas, plans, likes, dislikes, sound and video recordings - any one of which can be erased by an unfortunately placed blood-clot.sledheavy wrote:Just as we encompass the idea of a soul, so must our creation. It has to, or I don't see it surviving. This is one of the backwards dilemmas creationism presents. Because a body without the idea of a soul would be just as equal without a heart or mind to function equally from a spiritual standpoint. And most religions would probably do a fine job at pointing that out.
We really wouldn't create a true form of life, but rather a spiritual amputee. At least that's something to think about.
Man's first creation of the robot will undoubtably need man. Devices will require input to operate and commands to carry out. Not until we succeed in developing a logic program and a learning program will this start to take off.
And as we discard the fact behind our inner workings and anatomy through everyday thought, so might this creation. It will ask questions pertaining to questions we can't answer, but every religion will attempt to answer. And that idea of the soul will prevent it from ever being equal with its creation.
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.
