Is the internet alive?

[Sayonara]

All of them, except for movement or reproduction in some cases, and sense in most (but that depends how the sense requirement is specified).

[bascule]

I would say the Internet is teeming with life but is not itself alive yet. Wait until after SAI...

[YT2095]

ok, so we have our 7 defining points laid out in post #3.

as of yet a general concensus has not been reached, so lets try and invert the question, assuming the internet IS Alive, what would "Kill" it?

and lets work from that angle instead

 

as far as I can see, if left alone by all HUMAN (living anyway) users, there would be a flurry of bots doing their regual searches, and then very little else.

this would probably take a day or two.

then there maybe the Virus on a timer or a logic bomb set to go off at a specific date that would change a few things (but not much as there would be no-one there to open the emails etc...) and another flurry of bot activity.

 

so, I set up a a row of dominoes in a cascade patern with all sorts of contingent triggers and it`s "Life"!???

Naaah, the internet`s NOT alive

 

 

it`s just a machine (a big one granted and very complex) doing its job.

[bascule]

In order for the Internet to be alive you really need two things...

 

Something like BOINC (or from another perspective, a botnet) in which programs can live on the Internet itself (rather than merely accessing the Internet)

 

Intelligent programs utilizing (and hopefully evolving) within this infrastructure.

[padren]

I think the statements on sensory perception are quite good. My own refridgerator can "sense" when its getting too warm and kick in the compressor, but that could never count towards being alive - its just a mechanical tripwire.

 

I think Bascule makes an interesting point, in which we'd question, is the internet a possible environment where digital life could occur?

 

If the internet is alive, its the single most symbiotically dependant lifeform ever to exist.

 

I find it interesting, normally you say "Does [object] qualify as [definition]" and people debate the properties of [object] but in this case, we are pretty much in agreement about the object - its the [definition] that is getting kicked all around.

 

Perhaps we should ask, if we are asking if the internet is alive, why we are asking about that specific thing, and not something else? What attributes make us even want to consider the internet may be alive?

 

Its very complex, and due to a very symbiotic* relationship its gaining nodes...etc, but the complexity factor is more an indication it could be "alive with our knowledge" than a factor for being determined to be alive. As vague as the definition of life is, most of the factor requirements are vague as well. Can reproduction/growth be dependant by a symbiotic relationship with another lifeform and still count as life?

 

 

*We don't need the internet to surivive, and if alive it needs us to, but by symbiotic, I mean it improves human life enough that we choose to keep it intact, so it couldn't be considered parasitical in nature.

[Dak]

I've just noticed something - you said "it would be hard to classify sea-sponges as a single living organism".

 

This is not what the definition of life is trying to do' date=' which is why in post #43 I refered to "sensory processes in a living system" rather than in an organism.

 

Remember the definition is for [i']life[/i], not for "a living organism". It doesn't specify any particular structure or system of sub-unit relationships.

 

Overlooking this detail could easily lead to misapplication of the term

 

ok: is it correct to say that if we assume the entire seasponge is 'the system', it doesnt completely satisfy each requirement of 'life'; however, if we view a seasponge cell as 'the system', it fully meets all of the criteria of 'life'?

 

its just a mechanical tripwire

 

when you get right down to it, though, brains/neural-networks/nerves are just chemical tripwires.

[padren]

when you get right down to it' date=' though, brains/neural-networks/nerves are just chemical tripwires.[/quote']

 

Yes, but wouldn't the difference between sensory input and direct reflexive reaction be that there is something more involved than an isolated mechanical reflex within an isolated element of the alledged organism?

 

I mean, you shine sunlight on my skin, and pigmentation occurs within it, but that is not because my skin senses sunlight - its a natural chemical reaction when exposed to that stimuli.

I do sense temperature, because of the nervous system sends a signal to the brain relaying that sensory information.

Isn't there a fair distinction between the two types of triggers?

[Sayonara]

ok: is it correct to say that if we assume the entire seasponge is 'the system', it doesnt completely satisfy each requirement of 'life'; however, if we view a seasponge cell as 'the system', it fully meets all of the criteria of 'life'?

What I mean is that we don't call, say, a Portuguese Man-of-war "non-living" for not being a single organism, because our definition of life doesn't specify that it should be.

[ecoli]

I think the statements on sensory perception are quite good. My own refridgerator can "sense" when its getting too warm and kick in the compressor, but that could never count towards being alive - its just a mechanical tripwire.

 

But, I don't see this being very different from the many chemical tripwires that occur in the body. Regulation of glucose levels in the blood, for example.

 

I'm saying that a refrigerator is alive, but I don't really see how certain mechanisms of machines and living beings are inherently different. Sure, living beings tend to be more complex, but other then that, I don't see a big enough differece to classify these specific mechanisms as a deciding factor in that.

[Sayonara]

Why did we ever let this thread sink?

 

I'm saying that a refrigerator is alive, but I don't really see how certain mechanisms of machines and living beings are inherently different. Sure, living beings tend to be more complex, but other then that, I don't see a big enough differece to classify these specific mechanisms as a deciding factor in that.

You have to remember that we are not judging any given 'potentially living' system solely on the basis of whether or not its sensory circuits are "just trip-wires"; we are applying it as part of the entire definition.

 

The refrigerator falls down on the definition of life because, while we might agree to increase our tolerance for primitive sensory circuits to the extremities of reason, the fridge-system simply does not meet the other criteria (e.g. reproduction).

 

The same applies to t'interweb.

[Trurl]

I just skimmed the thread and haven't read the entire augument. But we are trying to prove the Internet is alive or not, or assuming it is alive and trying to see what would kill it?

 

I saw a documentary with a scientist who claimed the Earth was alive because of its systems and the way living and nonliving creatures worked to create "a living" Earth.

 

In my opinion, I would say the Internet is alive. Not due to any one computer code, but the entire system that forms the Internet.

[Sayonara]

I just skimmed the thread and haven't read the entire augument. But we are trying to prove the Internet is alive or not, or assuming it is alive and trying to see what would kill it?

The former. Reading the thread is highly recommended.

 

I saw a documentary with a scientist who claimed the Earth was alive because of its systems and the way living and nonliving creatures worked to create "a living" Earth.

Did anyone ask him "and how does the Earth reproduce...?"

 

In my opinion, I would say the Internet is alive. Not due to any one computer code, but the entire system that forms the Internet.

In that case you either...

a) Do not understand the definition of "alive", or

b) Do not understand how the internet works, or

c) Both of the above.

 

Like I said, reading the thread is recommended! Because we are applying a definition to a rationally describable system, it's not simply a matter of opinion

[Trurl]

By my opinion I meant what my "hunch" was. After all don't all theories start out as hunches? I am by no means an expert on any of these things. But I remember a theory called the Gaia hypothesis

 

 

If someone were to call the Net living I think a system between people, machine, and ideas including everything of the Net--- this is how they'd have to do it.

 

Do you think the Earth itself is alive? There are many critics. But everyone has to admit it is an interesting way to describe life on Earth. And if a system such as the life on earth can be alive, could a system of machines be alive? It is more than just comparing the processes of single living organisms.

[Sepiraph]

I think the internet that we are creating right now is rather like the "structure" that will one day support digital lifeform of the future. So in some sense we are literally creating an early digital universe. My thoughts have been influenced by Steven Levy's Artificial Life and the anime series Ghost in the Shell: Standalone Complex. I think encountering the ideas from those sources really open ones' perspective of the question: What is life?

 

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.

 

Interesting, I also happened to independently think of similar ideas back in the early nineties, although I was partially influenced by John Wyndham's The Chrysalids that I read while I was in high school.

[Sayonara]

By my opinion I meant what my "hunch" was. After all don't all theories start out as hunches? I am by no means an expert on any of these things. But I remember a theory called the Gaia hypothesis

There's nothing wrong with having a hunch or a hypothesis. What I meant was that having come into the thread after quite a bit of discussion, you need to read it to see what impacts that discussion has on your hypothesis.

 

Do you think the Earth itself is alive? There are many critics. But everyone has to admit it is an interesting way to describe life on Earth. And if a system such as the life on earth can be alive, could a system of machines be alive? It is more than just comparing the processes of single living organisms.

Gaia hypothesis relies on the idea that the Earth system comprises thousands of living systems. This is an attribute that the internet does not share, so the comparison is somewhat tenuous.

 

 

I think the internet that we are creating right now is rather like the "structure" that will one day support digital lifeform of the future.

Being a "habitat" for emerging digital life forms would not make the internet alive itself (in the same way that, say, your house is not alive), but it is an interesting idea.

[Genecks]

I'm starting to think that for something to be alive, it needs an immune system. Otherwise, it has to have a significant impact on the biological immune system of another species.

 

I had to write a philosophical essay about what it means for something to be alive. To say the least, the word is pretty much thrown out of my vocabulary. It's a word attached to a concept that creates an illusion.

 

Now, the importance of something depends on a few criteria I've created:

 

1) Does it influence me?

 

If yes, then it's important.

 

2) Does it communicate with me?

 

If yes, how so?

 

3) Does it influence my biology?

 

If yes, how so?

 

4) Will it destroy all of my biological unit if it's not there?

5) Will it destroy all of my biological unit if it stays with me?

 

Most of it has to do with communication principles and communication transfer.

The term "systems theory" comes to mind.

[bascule]

Wow, hey Trurl, where's Klapaucius?

 

Also, Singularity = intelligent machines = Internet alive!

 

Also:

 

http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends

 

I thought stuff like this would make the Internet think. Now I learn the Internet is thinking about total crap.

 

Think about better stuff, Internet!

[Sepiraph]

I prefer the original Google Zeitgeist, I have no idea why Google replaced it with Hot Trend since it seems much worse (and sounds terrible too). The international Zeitgeist was pretty interesting: http://www.google.com/press/intl-zeitgeist.html

[Royston]

Surely it's rather pointless speculating whether the internet will become alive...I mean wouldn't we be the ones that would give it the functionality to 'stand alone', and what possible reason is there, to want the internet to think for itself, which isn't even a requirement for life.

 

How can (solely) the passing of information manifest into something that's self-replicating, has a respiratory system, struggles to survive et.c et.c I'm at a loss to how that can possibly come about.

[Sepiraph]

How can (solely) the passing of information manifest into something that's self-replicating, has a respiratory system, struggles to survive et.c et.c I'm at a loss to how that can possibly come about.

 

That's a good question, but I don't think resipiratory system is necessary at all and perhaps you should re-think the order of the question. I think the important criteria are for an entity to: 1) self-replicate and 2)"evolve" or adapt (and allowing the possibillity for the increase in its complexity). Then it seems that the passing of information is merely the necessary condition in order to achieve these criteria.

 

Also we know that life happened, at least once, on Earth in carbon-based form because we are here. So what makes anyone presume that it cannot happen again in a digital (perhaps sillicon-based) form?

[Royston]

So what makes anyone presume that it cannot happen again in a digital (perhaps sillicon-based) form?

 

I guess the short answer is carbon is an incredibly versatile element, silicon isn't.

[MolotovCocktail]

I guess the short answer is carbon is an incredibly versatile element, silicon isn't.

 

 

Silicon can make chains that are just as long and complex as carbon. I think the issue with silicon is the stability of the chains and compounds though. But on some other planets the conditions may be different.

[Sayonara]

Silicon can make chains that are just as long and complex as carbon. I think the issue with silicon is the stability of the chains and compounds though. But on some other planets the conditions may be different.

 

Guys, the topic of this thread is "is the internet alive?".

 

That means the internet as it is now.

[insane_alien]

Silicon can make chains that are just as long and complex as carbon. I think the issue with silicon is the stability of the chains and compounds though. But on some other planets the conditions may be different.

 

up to about 8 Si atoms. and they self combust on exposure to oxygen. if it was cold enough for them to be stable then water would well and truly be completely solid. etc. etc.

 

anyway, back on topic. i don't think the internet is alive. the internet is just a bunch of wires and fibreoptic cables. and the nodes are just computers. you wouldn't call a computer alive and you wouldn't call the cables themselves alive. and even the combination you wouldn't call alive(is the computer connection to your CD drive alive?) just cos its much bigger doesn't change the fact that its not alive.