Definition of life

[aman]

If we look at an electronic device with memory and computational abilities, sensory and motor abilities, and we add recognition and cognative abilities by parallel processing beyond our abilities, would it be life. It consumes electricty end excretes it to ground circuits. It is programmed to survive and reproduce itself.

What do we need to prove it is alive and what also to prove it is sentient? If you put it in front of a mirror and it discovered on its own that the imaga was itself, is that enough?

Just aman

[kenel]

In my belief, in order for it to be "alive", it would have to "breathe"...which a mechanical structure does not. Also, being somewhat religious, it would also have to contain a "soul".

 

The Definition of "Life":

 

1. (a)The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

 

(b)The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.

 

2. The physical, mental, and spiritual experiences that constitute existence

 

- Dictionary.com

 

Though we could simulate human abilities, it still does not constitute as "life" by the definition provided.

[fafalone]

We can't even get everyone to agree on whether a virus is life, much less machines. Single celled organisms are considered life, but do not have thoughts/emotions, so I don't think that would be an adequate way to define life. The best way to classify a virus is as living; because it's much more similar to a living organism than to non-living items. As far as simple robots and AIs, I think this area is the area they best fit into, until true emotion, feeling, compassion comes along... which won't be for quite some time.

[aman]

I always thought that for something to be alive it must respirate, or consume and excrete. A virus only replicates but it is organic. I don't think it is life.

Since our mind can go where no body has gone before, I hope you'll indulge me. A planet has semi-liquid pools of silicon and is bombarded for millions of years by metal rich meteorites. Like our amino acid pools the silicon and metal evolve clumps of transistors over eons. Using magnetic fields they finally become mobile and then move to land for the previously unreachable metal deposits. Under stresses they evolve to sentience. They travel off planet and carry large magnetic field generators to produce energy for them to consume and their toilet is a ground point. Would they be alive?

Isn't that what we are trying to create with AI? Would they be brothers? We better be careful.

Just aman.

[Radical Edward]

the bottom seven points are a pretty good definition of life:

 

http://www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/physgeog/contents/9a.html

 

although rather interestingly virii don't fall into all of those caregories.

 

furthermore, if you are to take the quantities in their more abstract form (namely metabolism, materials and biomass) one could argue that certain computer programs are alive, if they are programmed with the correct features, albeit in an extremely simple way.

[Sayonara]

This is a subject which has been discussed time and time again, and having observed and often participated in such deliberations I have come to the following conclusion:

 

The most satisfactory way to answer this otherwise treacherous question is...

 

The word 'life' is not a state of being associated with the condition of living - it is, as are most words, an assigned identifier that allows us to refer to such a condition in a way which will be understood by a conventional majority. The word came into use after the condition of life was first expressed, and as such its meaning is subject to the consideration of what constituted the condition of life at the time that the word came into use.

 

Since our language is our way of describing our environment, and projecting the sum results of calculations based on sensory input - both of which are subject to our own processing methods and interpretation - it is necessary for our language to expand and adapt to encompass new concepts and metaphoric states.

 

Therefore, since we have now reached a point where we have a need to describe an entity such as a machine or virus - entities varyingly unlike any other entity that has previously been described as expressing a condition of life - we need to carefully review the meaning of the word 'life' in a context that is relevant to what condition we are trying to describe.

 

Taking the example of the machine - I would suggest that arguing it is alive by using further metaphor (such as feeding on electricity) is a flawed logical step. However, the reverse is also true. For instance, I do not consider the argument "a machine cannot be truly independent because it will always need to be supplied with energy in order to continue" to be valid, because everything we currently understand to be expressing the condition of life also experiences this restriction.

 

Did anyone follow that, or am I just being oblique?

[aman]

I saw a PBS program where a jar full of yeast cells was sealed with two electrodes attached inside. Another jar of yeast cells was set nearby and sugar was added. A signifigant electrical difference was noted in the electrodes in the sealed jar although there was no contact between the yeast. Is this connectivity the signature of life we try to define? Little microconsciences being more than the sum of their biological parts. Something extra.

In AI we may have the parts put together but something more than just the sum of the parts must take place for actual life to be created.

Thanks Sayonara cus you just triggered this train of thought. I hope I'm riding on tracks and not sand. Just for thought.

Just aman

[Sayonara]

There was a similar experiment involving plants under stress conditions (having their leaves burned, etc). Nearby plants were shown to exhibit symptomatic responses to the stimulus even though it was not applied to them.

 

Not sure about the scientific credibility of this experiment, but it seems quite similar in the microconscience aspect.

 

Perhaps morphic resonance is inherent to all life (where 'life' == the currently accepted definition )

[PlanetCpp]

It's hard to say that any machine is "living" but i was going to say that something has life if it knows right from wrong, but as faf mentioned, single celled organisms are living, but obviouslly don't know right from wrong. I've seen a lot of programs that were said to be living, one good example is A.L.I.C.E programmed by Dr. Wallace (i think i got that right)

you can find her here at http://alice.sunlitsurf.com/a.l.i.c.e./ (warning: shes addicting)

as real as that can be at times it's still just good code and a BIG list of phrases and responses. hardly alive. so i think i would say that a program/machine is "living" if it does any task that you havent programmed it to do. There was a professor that created a progam of little beings, just dots really. and each one was a class object and they were really only supposed to go around reproducing and eating. i forgot all the details but basically he said he ran the program and saw the little dots doing things that were no where near what he programmed them to do, they were alive to him.

but even in that case some programs exhibit traits that you dont expect while coding. one funny example is a bunch of game programmers were working on a huge game, the game had many characters roaming around a world. after they created one character they noticed a big problem..it would just sit in the same spot moving around very oddly, then die. they couldnt figure out why it would be shaking then die for no reason. turns out that they programmed each character to have 2 things, a nutrition value for predators and a leve of needed nutrition. the animal they created was the most nutritious organism in the game at that point and i was eating itself, that explained the wierd activity.

theres my point of view if it even ammased to one

[Radical Edward]

when I talk about life in a computer, I really mean something that emulates the functions of life - namely reproduction, metabolism and so on, within an environment that has been created for it (the environment being created for it). There have been several programs that do this, probably thousands. one example would be the computer game 'creatures' if any of you have come across it.

 

this is entirely different to sentient - which is what programs like that alice are trying to work towards (although that one is more of a conversation thing, I doubt it has any feedback or learning mechanism)

 

It will be interesting if and when computer sentience is achieved, to see if it meets the criteria for being 'alive', in the real (worldly, rather than within the computer) sense of the word - I doubt it will rather strangely, as there will be no real funtion to maintain homeostasis, reproduction and other such things. maybe the definition of alive will need looking at again, or perhaps we will have to accept sentience that is not alive. who knows.

[aman]

A test for sentience in computers, off the top of my head, might look for that something extra, not programmed. Not meaning to torture sentience but only for purpose of extreme example. If we programmed an AI to the best of our abilities and it had recognition of its own hardware and software. Then we melted an identicle CPU to its own in its sensory range, Would it have extra electrical activity other than what would be expected? That might signify the something extra of sentience. Sorrow or fear?

Just for thought.

Just aman:cool:

[aman]

Maybe take Kirlien photos of its CPU as it processes?

Just aman:confused:

[blike]

What are Kirlien photos?

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by blike

What are Kirlien photos?

You know that photo of the hand in colours that look like an infra-red image during the opening credits of X-Files? That's a Kirlien photo.

 

They are supposed to show aggregations of auric power in the human body.

 

Here is more info.

[aman]

I don't know if Kirlian photography is any kind of science at all really or a phenomena that is useful but hijacked by a bunch of new age knuckleheads. I think there might be some kind of validity to it especially around life. The few valid studies under controls seem to indicate life has an effect. It just might be a tool.

Just aman

[chris]

thats real? i mean, how can u take a picture that can feel how the person is feeling?

[aman]

Everything in nature is an energy illusion. Mass is mostly space with an amount of energy inherent in it to maintain the spins and paths of the subatomic particles. The electrmagnetic fields maintain the form. On top of these stable fields we add an extra electrical component to animate the mass which is us.

Kirlien photography seems to be able to give us a clue as to what the fields are that we add. It might be a tool to help discover life in the future. Maybe?