Is the internet alive?

[Daecon]

What are the scientific criteria for defining an entity as being "alive" and how many of those criteria are displyed in the penomenon that is the internet?

[BobbyJoeCool]

The internet itself I wouldn't say is alive... the internet is created by people, controled by people, influenced by people... the internet exists because of people... it has no intellegence of it's own... no instincts, no feelings... it's just like a massive computer where a lot of information is stored...

[Dak]

What i learnt in school, is that to be classified as alive something has to exhibit all of the following criteria:

 

Movement: check -- component parts of the computers on which the internet is stored move.

 

Respire: Nope -- the internet is metabolically inert.

 

sense: check -- the internet alters its behaviour dependant on stimuli

 

Grow: check -- servers are added all the time

 

Reproduse nope -- there's only one internet.

 

Excrete: check -- see this thread for proof that shit most definately does come out of the internet.

 

require nutrition: check -- energy, in the form of electricity, goes into it.

 

So, even being very generouse, the internet doesnt meet all the requirements of a living organism.

 

Note that the above requirements are by no means the universally accepted definition of life: theres alot of debate as to what actually constitutes life; but im not aware of a definition of life that would qualify the internet as alive.

 

Anyway, the internet is just a collection of networks, which themselves are just collections of computers.

[Daecon]

What's the proper definition of respiration, is it solely gaseous exchange or could another medium be substituted in it's place?

 

And then there are computer programs that "reproduce", viruses etc...

[MulderMan]

"Cellular respiration is the process in which the chemical bonds of energy-rich molecules such as glucose are converted into energy usable for life processes."

 

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

 

the definition of life is a tricky one, and i doubt there is a widely accepted term for it, only identified features.

[Daecon]

I guess it would be stretching the analogy to far to make a contrast with executable files which change program code...

[doG]

The basic building block of life is the cell. There are no cells in the internet.

[ecoli]

The basic building block of life is the cell. There are no cells in the internet.

 

It is with most life forms on earth. But surely you don't alien life would evolve the same way. And what about protobionts? Those aren't really considered cells.

 

And even if that where true, perhaps you could consider the internet as a single cell.

 

To be perfectly honest, I believe that humanity's definition of life is too narrow and limited because of our earthly experiances. I like the idea of the internet being considered alive. It reminds me of Jane from the Enderverse.

[Sisyphus]

It seems like computer viruses are about as "alive" as real viruses. Possibly even more so. I don't even know how to begin considering the internet as a single entity, though.

[Tigerbeam]

it's hard to determine if it's alive, because it is man made and in an enviroment unlike any other lifeform we have ever studied. Comparing it to other life forms is difficult, especially with common arguments of what is required in a life form.

[ecoli]

it's hard to determine if it's alive, because it is man made and in an enviroment unlike any other lifeform we have ever studied. Comparing it to other life forms is difficult, especially with common arguments of what is required in a life form.

 

Which is why I don't argue with common arguements of what makes up life. Why can't something man-made be considered life. Because we don't consider it an organic molecule, most wouldn't consider it alive. I believe this is folly.

[eruheru]

perhaps it wouldnt be because the internet cant adapt on its own. although im starting to believe it is

[bascule]

What are the scientific criteria for defining an entity as being "alive" and how many of those criteria are displyed in the penomenon that is the internet?

 

The Internet is a universal meme vehicle (i.e. memes physically embodied as part of a transient stage of movement from mind to mind). In that respect it is no more alive than a library; without users its behavior is purely mechanistic.

 

As a Singularitarian I would say the Internet is quickly shaping into the single universal ontology (in the information theory sense) which will, in the future, guide all human endeavours in lieu of the ontologies we individually keep inside of our heads.

[ecoli]

perhaps it wouldnt be because the internet cant adapt on its own. although im starting to believe it is

 

who says self-adaptation is a requirement for life?

 

As a Singularitarian I would say the Internet is quickly shaping into the single universal ontology (in the information theory sense) which will' date=' in the future, guide all human endeavours in lieu of the ontologies we individually keep inside of our heads.[/quote']

 

ahhh, a fellow Singularitarian! Did you get this from Kurzweil, or some other source?

[bascule]

ahhh, a fellow Singularitarian! Did you get this from Kurzweil, or some other source?

 

Actually most of my thoughts on the Singularity have come about through my own introspection. I've been trying to put together something that outlines my specific view, but I've talked about it at length around here.

 

I read Kurzweil's The Age of Spiritual Machines around 2001 or so, and subsequently discovered Vernor Vinge's paper.

[ecoli]

[/url']I read Kurzweil's The Age of Spiritual Machines around 2001 or so, and subsequently discovered Vernor Vinge's paper.

 

I read the same book at around the same time. I picked up other stuff from his website, including Vinge's ideas.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think the other thing the internet lacks is homeostasis.

 

It changes constantly rather than staying constant and reacting to external forces in a way that keeps it the same. Rather, it changes due to many different things.

[clarisse]

but viruses are not alive!! they don't meet all the MRS GREN requirements either... theyr'e jsut parasites and don't have a proper nuclei so they're not even proper cells (the building blocks of life!!)

[clarisse]

I mean the idea is tantalizing but why would you even ask? i mean do you want it to be alive or what? or do you fear it being alive?

[ecoli]

but viruses are not alive!! they don't meet all the MRS GREN requirements either...

 

This requirements were put into place by people with blinders on. For example, I would argue that a being that could live forever would have no need to reproduce.

 

theyr'e jsut parasites and don't have a proper nuclei so they're not even proper cells (the building blocks of life!!)

 

prokaryotes dont have nucleus either, but you wouldn't argue that they're alive. And what definition calls for the cell as a building block of life? This, I believe, to be a limited definition that doesn't include the possibility of a different system of life, one that we are not used to.

[Dak]

This requirements were put into place by people with blinders on. For example, I would argue that a being that could live forever would have no need to reproduce.

 

Indeed.

 

also, they arent a very good set of requirements for something to be defined as life... take this robot, for example.

 

Imagine that it was powered by a petrol generator... it would move, respire (take in oxygen for the petrol engine), sense, grow (as it adds blocks to itself), reproduse, excrete (carbon dioxides, sulfoxides, other end-products of petrol combustion), and require nutrition (petrol)... thus qualifying it as 'alive' by the mrs gren rules.

[clarisse]

Imagine that it was powered by a petrol generator... it would move, respire

(take in oxygen for the petrol engine), sense, grow (as it adds blocks to

itself), reproduse, excrete (carbon dioxides, sulfoxides, other end-products of

petrol combustion), and require nutrition (petrol)... thus qualifying it as

'alive' by the mrs gren rules.

 

yes of course i know MRS GREN is over simplistic... but my point was that even with that simple definition the internet doesn't classify as a living organism...

 

and about the robot you refer to... please, i would love to know exactly how it reproduces? iand the " nutrient" : the petrol or whatever it uses... it provides energy yes, but that's not metabolism.. yes it might add blocks to itself but that is just growth.. unless it then divides itself into an identical copy of itself capable of carrying out the same functions as the original robot (without human intervention)

and no.. it isn't even growth because the blocks weren't exactly synthetized by the robot itself were they? they were externally made... or not?

and even if it met all the requirements of the (as agreed) over simplistic mrs gren, i wouldn't think of it as being alive

 

Originally Posted by ecoli

This requirements were put into place by people with blinders on. For example, I would argue that a being that could live forever would have no need to reproduce.

and here you are just being hypothetical rather than practical ecoli, because then how did this immortal creature came into existence...? i mean, i can't deny you have a point and i could even argue in favour of it (like mules who can't reproduce but still they classify as living right?) but my point is that a "lifeform" is different than being alive. I mean stars are considered as lifeforms but i don't think you would say they are alive? i would consider the internet as being ARTIFICIALLY ALIVE but not alive as bacteria, you, me, reptiles, mammals or other eukaryotes

[ecoli]

yes of course i know MRS GREN is over simplistic... but my point was that even with that simple definition the internet doesn't classify as a living organism...

 

It's not that its oversimplistic, it's just innacurate because it only describes life as we want it to be, not as it actually is.

 

and about the robot you refer to... please, i would love to know exactly how it reproduces? and the " nutrient" : the petrol or whatever it uses... it provides energy yes, but that's not metabolism..

 

How is the combustion reaction of petrol any different then the combustion reaction that occurs with glucose? I think your definition of nutrient and metabolism may be too restrictive.

 

yes it might add blocks to itself but that is just growth

 

Things are getting bigger... please tell me why that's not growth?

 

.. unless it then divides itself into an identical copy of itself capable of carrying out the same functions as the original robot (without human intervention)

 

Why would something not require human intervention in order to reproduce? Humans write the program, but the robot reproduces by itself. If you believe in God then this shouldn't be a problem. Even if you don't, the definition of reproduction does not exlude the possibility of outside induction.

 

and no.. it isn't really growth because the blocks weren't exactly synthetized by the robot itself were they? they were externally made... or not?

 

Human growth occurs because we eat protiens. We integrate those same molecules into our own growth. This is not inherently different then the robot situation, if less complex.

 

and even if it met all the requirements of the (as agreed) over simplistic mrs gren, i wouldn't think of it as being alive

 

Why not? Its the definition you gave for life.

 

and here you are just being hypothetical rather than practical ecoli, because then how did this immortal creature came into existence...?

 

Because the possibility of it to occur exists. this would cause us to alter our definition of life... I say why not preemptively change our definition of life to consider all the possibilities that we can.

 

not alive as bacteria, you, me, reptiles, mammals or other eukaryotes

 

The only difference if our organic molecules. But who says life can't exist based on a different chemical system?

[Dak]

and about the robot you refer to... please, i would love to know exactly how it reproduces?

 

here's a link to the researchers web-site, which has a movie of the robot self-replicating.

 

Basically, it assembles the blocks to form a copy of itself.

 

and the " nutrient" : the petrol or whatever it uses... it provides energy yes, but that's not metabolism

 

it would probably count as catabolism

 

But your right, as it doesnt 'build up' chemicals (anabolism), i dont think it could be said to have a metabolism.

 

and even if it met all the requirements of the (as agreed) over simplistic mrs gren, i wouldn't think of it as being alive

 

'twas my point

 

I dont realy think that there is such a thing as 'life'... we're just bundles of chemical machinary and information of varying degrees of complexity... whilst that doesnt make life any less special, i think it makes it pretty much impossible to adequately define without resorting to some kind of arbritrary bench-marks.

 

having said that...

 

I mean stars are considered as lifeforms

 

...unless we're talking michael jakson, I'm pretty sure we can exclude stars from the list of things posessing 'life'

[ecoli]

But your right, as it doesnt 'build up' chemicals (anabolism), i dont think it could be said to have a metabolism.

 

"Metabolism - The chemical and physiological processes by which the body builds and maintains itself and by which it breaks down food and nutrients to produce energy." http://www.cytosport.com

 

What in that process does not fit this definition? (and don't say because petrol isn't food)

 

The petrol gives the robot the energy to use the blocks to grow/repair and reproduce.