Is the internet alive?

[Dak]

^

 

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 [emphasis mine]

 

Breaking stuff down into less complicated stuff (usually to get energy from it) is catabolism, building stuff into more complicated molecules is anabolism... an organism that does both has a metabolism.

 

The robot only breaks stuff down, so it has a catabolism, but not a metabolism.

 

Plus... petrol isn't food

 

The robot could relatively easily be redesighned to actually have a metabolism tho, id assume; maybe some (non-standard) catalytic converter in its exaust pipe, that would probably classify it as having a metabolism.

 

hmm... i remember reading something about some scientists who were trying to artificially make something that satisfied all of the requirements of 'life'; it was essentially some enzymes in lycelles, with a DNA substitute inside... ill try and find the link.

 

My point was just that its pretty easy to imagine something being built that could qualify as life by most of the current definitions, without actually being life -- or to think of stuff that blatantly is alive, but wouldnt count as alive (like your imortal being, and clarisse's mule).

[clarisse]

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.

 

ok, so what you are saying is just that it is partially described, and yes you are rightr maybe we could widen and expand our concept of what being alive means but here you are matter-of-factly claiming to know what life is... I mean, if you know how it actually is i would really like to know...

but then i think it is a matter of perspective... its like asking ourselves the teleological questions of "how do i know what i know is true" and "is there any knowledge in the world which is So Certain No Reasonable Man Can Doubt It?” (Bertrand Russell)?"

but what i believe is that for our definitions, there must be limits... and if then we want to define something that doesn't fit any of our existing definitions, THEN we create new ones.... so I agree, we must never be too dogmatic but we must also accept the predetermined definitions ... and yes i repeat, we can revise them and modify them (how else have theories evolved right?) but this can only be done to a certain extent with definitions because then we could stretch them all too far to include as many things as we may possible want ... so i remain firmly convinced that internet is not alive as we are... but yet it can be living ... and i already said that there is a difference between living and being alive.. and yes the sun and the stars can be considered as lifeforms... if as ecoli says I make my definition of metabolism less restricitive...

[ecoli]

ok, so what you are saying is just that it is partially described, and yes you are rightr maybe we could widen and expand our concept of what being alive means but here you are matter-of-factly claiming to know what life is... I mean, if you know how it actually is i would really like to know...

 

I never claimed that... I'm just trying to challenge your ideas, not make some sort of sweeping statement that is the 'right' answer. I'm trying to spark discussion, not end it.

 

but then i think it is a matter of perspective... its like asking ourselves the teleological questions of "how do i know what i know is true" and "is there any knowledge in the world which is So Certain No Reasonable Man Can Doubt It?” (Bertrand Russell)?"

 

This is obviously true, but I think that there should be some sort of general consensus that our current definition of life is unsatisfactory.

 

but what i believe is that for our definitions, there must be limits... and if then we want to define something that doesn't fit any of our existing definitions, THEN we create new ones.... so I agree, we must never be too dogmatic but we must also accept the predetermined definitions ... and yes i repeat, we can revise them and modify them (how else have theories evolved right?) but this can only be done to a certain extent with definitions because then we could stretch them all too far to include as many things as we may possible want

 

But who should get to decide what these limitations are, so that there can be some agreement in the scientific community?

 

... so i remain firmly convinced that internet is not alive as we are... but yet it can be living ... and i already said that there is a difference between living and being alive.. and yes the sun and the stars can be considered as lifeforms... if as ecoli says I make my definition of metabolism less restricitive...

 

I'm a little hazy about the difference between your living system and an alive one? I, personally, don't see a distinction, but perhaps you'd care to clarify for me? Thanks.

[clarisse]

no i don't want to end the discussion either ecoli.. . acutally i find your arguements very challenging and interesting... i mean you everyone has their own convictions right... and with this i think i answer one of your questions:

 

But who should get to decide what these limitations are, so that there can be some agreement in the scientific community?

 

i mean this again is a somplete subject into itself... like why should there be any limits at all? and i mean honestly i don't know who has the right or the compentency to decide what the limits and boundaries are... and it is just like asking who can say what is and what isn't fair... it is really complex because there has to be some sort of norms to maintain order (and i'm talking not only about science but like everyday regulations) but who among us has the right or privilege or w/e to set them... who has the authority?

 

I'm a little hazy about the difference between your living system and an alive one? I, personally, don't see a distinction, but perhaps you'd care to clarify for me? Thanks.

i'm not referring to an alive system... the difference lies that for me, this is subjective i aknowledge, being alive implies so much more than living... yes to be alive you must be a living organism... but going back to the internet discussion, you say that you believe its living or at least the idea appeals to you and you have your reasons... but being alive for me is experiencing life... this involves feelings and perceptions.... and i truly think that the internet is incapable of doing so and yet i accept the fact that you can see it as living or as Dak said:

 

originally posted by Dak: My point was just that its pretty easy to imagine something being built that could qualify as life by most of the current definitions, without actually being life -- or to think of stuff that blatantly is alive, but wouldnt count as alive (like your imortal being, and clarisse's mule).

[Daecon]

I think I get your difference between living and being alive, you're referring to "quality of life" or something similar, right?

 

I still can't quite comprehend the concept of star systems being living...

 

I've long accepted the idea of technological life, in the same mold as the self-replicating robot - it should be theoretically possible to have something that can refine metals from ore, process and rebuild a new machine with the resulting components that would then have the same abilities.

 

However I was refering to the internet as a software phenomenon, not as a technological entity, but it would appear this discussion has evolved somewhat.

 

[center']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?[/center]

 

Actually, I was just trying to think of something cool to suggest as the first topic in the new "Speculations" forum...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Just as a note, the reason viruses are not considered alive is because of their lack of homeostasis, not their lack of a nucleus. You don't need to argue about that any more.

[the tree]

I once had a similar conversation on "could the internet become alive". There is a lot of random garbage that flies around whenever a file becomes corrupted or when a cable gets yanked out half way through transfer, and there is a humungous network for it to fester in so it could be possible* that something wich "eats" certain arangements of electrons as if they were sugar** could spontainiously appear.

 

*Albiet unlikely

** Not that far from what sugar or any other molecule really is.

[Daecon]

I once had a similar conversation on "could the internet become alive". There is a lot of random garbage that flies around whenever a file becomes corrupted or when a cable gets yanked out half way through transfer' date=' and there is a humungous network for it to fester in so it could be possible* that something wich "eats" certain arangements of electrons as if they were sugar** could spontainiously appear.

 

*Albiet unlikely

** Not that far from what sugar or any other molecule really is.

The chaos of the half-compiled programs in the internet could become like a "primordial soup"?

 

Interesting idea...

[ydoaPs]

would you consider Avida to be alive?

[Y-Soulja]

Exactly, if i didn't have no cells, i wouldn't be agin'........lol

[Daecon]

would you consider Avida[/url'] to be alive?

Intriguing...!

 

I don't know enough about it to have a definite opinion, but I won't automatically rule out the possibility.

[Sayonara]

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

 

[b']Movement:[/b] 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.

Furthermore, I would put "movement" as nope because it is not self-actuated.

 

I would put "sense" as nope because the internet only transports information between the stimulator and the receiver - there is no realisation and no contained neural circuit.

 

I would put "grow" as nope because, again, there is no self-actuation. We add servers to the network as an external process. Existing servers do not multiply, or build new nodes.

 

I would put "excrete" as nope simply because any way of justifying "check" is a semantic ploy.

 

"Require nutrition" does not need to be considered, because none of the functions that such nutrition would power contribute to a definition of life.

 

 

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.

Most frameworks for theoretical non-cellular life include self-actuation or some system of awareness, and the internet - being a transport medium - has neither.

 

 

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

I would say that the internet comprises the actual transport hardware (whether it's cables or EM signals), and the gateways whose sole function is to route TCP/IP information.

 

The vast majority of servers are external data/resource nodes and are as much a part of the internet as the local library's books and the contents of my nearest supermarket are a part of my material belongings. I might be able to use them as data/resources, but they don't contribute towards my qualification as a living thing.

 

One could argue that processes running on those servers and the related requests that are sent from them are as much a part of the internet as the technical infrastructure, but only by anthropomorphising the whole thing into a metaphor that can only accurately represent a living thing, or the internet as realistic observers would define it.

[Dak]

So, even being very generouse[/b'], the internet doesnt meet all the requirements of a living organism.

 

I was trying to point out that, even if we try to view it as alive, it cannot be viewed as such, even with what is imo the most lax of the definitions of life.

 

I would put "sense" as nope because the internet only transports information between the stimulator and the receiver - there is no realisation and no contained neural circuit.

 

Parts of the servers move when they recieve eletrical signals that are in response to external stimuli; I'd argue that they sence as much as jelly-fish do.

 

No argument with your other points, exept:

 

I would put "excrete" as nope simply because any way of justifying "check" is a semantic ploy.

 

it was a joke

[Sayonara]

I was trying to point out that, even if we try[/i'] to view it as alive, it cannot be viewed as such, even with what is imo the most lax of the definitions of life.

I know; my post is meant to add to yours rather than dispute it

[Dak]

^ I thought it probably was... but i wasn't sure if it was a 'squish the hippy who thinks the interweb is alive' type post

 

[edit]my bad... missed the 'furthermore' at the beginning[/edit]

 

What's your view on the 'internet qualifying as sensing' point i made? Im not sure of the exact definition of 'responding to' in reguards to 'sensing is responding to external stimuli'... what i said was valid, but then again it would be valid to say that a vase responds to the external stimuli of being poked by falling over... do you know what the differense between a direct repercussion type response and a 'sense' response is?

[Sayonara]

As you rightly perceive, sensory information and subsequent enaction is not simply a matter of stimulus and response. The context required for the life definition is one in which a coherent system is acting on feedback in a fashion that regulates or provokes inherent processes, which the internet does not do.

 

To put it another way, the stimuli and responses we see acting on the internet do not form part of any process that belongs to the "organism" as a whole. They are triggers and actions that act selfishly, usually at the behest and benefit (or not) of only two of the "cells" in the system. This would not be considered controlled sensory feedback in any other organism.

 

The nearest thing is cell signalling, but that too is usually part of a much wider scheme, in a histological context that has been developed in response to the larger needs of the organism.

[ecoli]

To put it another way, the stimuli and responses we see acting on the internet do not form part of any process that belongs to the "organism" as a whole. They are triggers and actions that act selfishly, usually at the behest and benefit (or not) of only two of the "cells" in the system. This would not be considered controlled sensory feedback in any other organism.

 

So, you are saying that the internet is not alive because the signaling system are not shared with the organism as a whole? If this is true, then I would argue that the body does not do this. Hormonal repsonses are only shared with a few cell systems in the body, other cells in the system aren't necesarily aware of other changes in the system.

 

And, even if I misundestood you, I would say that I think you are wrong... because the current definition of life is too narrow.

[Sayonara]

So, you are saying that the internet is not alive because the signaling system are not shared with the organism as a whole?

No, I am saying the internet is not alive according to the given definition because it fulfills none of the specified criteria that would allow it to do so.

 

The discussion about sense is only considering one such criterion and does not represent a complete argument.

 

If this is true, then I would argue that the body does not do this. Hormonal repsonses are only shared with a few cell systems in the body, other cells in the system aren't necesarily aware of other changes in the system.

I am proposing that sensory processes in a living system are considered a part of the system in the sense that they contribute to it, regulate it in some way, or exercise directed influences, each action of which is a function of the top-level entity and not of the enactor or responder sub-units.

 

I am not proposing that sensory processes and their consequences must be commonly inherent to all parts of the living system.

 

And, even if I misundestood you, I would say that I think you are wrong... because the current definition of life is too narrow.

Whether or not the definition is "wrong" is not related to whether or not the system under consideration meets the criteria of the definition.

[Dak]

To put it another way, the stimuli and responses we see acting on the internet do not form part of any process that belongs to the "organism" as a whole. They are triggers and actions that act selfishly, usually at the behest and benefit (or not) of only two of the "cells" in the system. This would not be considered controlled sensory feedback in any other organism.

 

Ahh, getcha now.

 

By that definition, though, it would be hard to classify sea-sponges as a single living organism, rather than a hetrologouse colony of genetically identical cells (like seaweeds are) -- although, i believe that i've heard that argument put forward before; maybe that was why.

[Sayonara]

Ahh' date=' getcha now.

 

By that definition, though, it would be hard to classify sea-sponges as a single living organism, rather than a hetrologouse colony of genetically identical cells (like seaweeds are) -- although, i believe that i've heard that argument put forward before; maybe that was why.[/quote']

In the case of something like a sponge, a weak fulfilment of the sense criterion can be easily overlooked due to strong fulfilment of the other criteria.

 

As ecoli perspicaciously points out, the definition is a bit vague (and has to be flexible even just to cover everything we already consider "alive".)

[ecoli]

In the case of something like a sponge, a weak fulfilment of the sense criterion can be easily overlooked due to strong fulfilment of the other criteria.

 

This is what I don't understand. Just because something is carbon-based we overlook things that don't fit our current definition. But for not-carbon based things, even if it fits our definition perfectly, we reject it as being alive. I ask again, why does life have to be considered carbon-based?

 

As ecoli perspicaciously points out, the definition is a bit vague (and has to be flexible even just to cover everything we already consider "alive".)

 

I think we should be classifying organisms based on the definition, not changing the definition to fit the organisms. This might be why were always coming up short with a good definition of life. We're doing things backwards to how the classification system should work.

[Sayonara]

This is what I don't understand. Just because something is carbon-based we overlook things that don't fit our current definition. But for not-carbon based things, even if it fits our definition perfectly, we reject it as being alive. I ask again, why does life have to be considered carbon-based?

The fact that the sponge is carbon-based has nothing to do with it. The definition has to be used in a way that is tolerant to organisms that don't totally comply with it because it's a poor definition.

 

I think we should be classifying organisms based on the definition, not changing the definition to fit the organisms. This might be why were always coming up short with a good definition of life. We're doing things backwards to how the classification system should work.

True, but life is so diverse that capturing a cross-sectional set of identifying criteria rapidly becomes problematic.

 

The problem is one of familiarity - we "know" what sort of things we consider to be alive, and we will have to encounter something that is utterly alien yet recognisable to us as "living" before we can calibrate our views.

[Dak]

The fact that the sponge is carbon-based has nothing to do with it. The definition has to be used in a way that is tolerant to organisms that don't totally comply with it because it's a poor definition.

 

If its viewed as a colony, then the problem goes away; each individual cell would be alive, and each individual cell would definately sense in the way that you described it.

 

The problem is simply with its status as a living multi-cellular organism, rather than a collection of living monocellular organisms; thinking about it more, the definition that you gave (pertaining just to sense) is quite fitting, as of all animals the seasponges are the least 'organismy', and more like living blobs of tissue, so its perhaps apt that they dont quite fulfill all of the criteria if viewed as a single, multicellular entity.

[Sayonara]

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, 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 life, 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

[Daecon]

How many of those criteria would apply to a single bacterium?