Author Topic: What Makes Things Alive? (Dividing Line Between Organism and AI)  (Read 18233 times)

Leon Kensington

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 296
  • Supreme Overlord of Earth
This topic is brought up a lot and I thought it ought to show up here as well.

What makes us things and where is the dividing line between organism and AI?



Jim

  • HP Lovecraft's 275,892nd biggest fan.
  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 191
The podcast GeeksOn once asked, "Could you fall in love with a Cylon?"

As far as my own opinion, I think an A.I. becomes an organism if it's fully aware of its own consciousness. Of course, measuring that would be difficult, one of those "Know it when I see it" kinds of things.

My imaginary omnipotent friend is more real that your imaginary omnipotent friend.


Tango Alpha Delta

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1778
    • Tad's Happy Funtime
Ah, yes... from Frankenstein to Data to Cylons to the Velveteen Rabbit; what makes something alive?  Or real?

What makes us keep asking the question?  I've always felt that the question of where "the line" is, whether you're calling it "intelligence", "life", or "consciousness", is just another way of asking "why are we here?"  And as near as I can tell, the best answer is the one that we are least interested in accepting.

There is some force holding the universe together and impelling our existence; the real argument is "what do we call it?"

I expect you'll draw out the philosophy majors and string out many threads of debate over it.  There have been volumes devoted to it, empires established and brought down over it, and countless moments devoted to contemplation of it.  But in the end, even though I will probably be dismissed for stating it in the terms of what some have referred to as "New-Age, hippy crap", I believe the answer to your question is, simply: Love.

This Wiki Won't Wrangle Itself!

I finally published my book - Tad's Happy Funtime is on Amazon!


Roney

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 440
I expect you'll draw out the philosophy majors

The question(s) tend to bore me a bit these days because I've filed them in the mental black hole of "questions I don't expect to see answered in my lifetime and that waste a lot of time and energy in the interim".  But Tad's line is bait I can't resist.  (BA Physics and Philosophy)

To satisfy both of my contradictory urges on the topic, I'll plop a turd into the punch-bowl: Colin McGinn's opinion that our brains have evolved to understand relatively simple pattern-matching and decision-making matters, which can be extrapolated into some more complicated and abstract fields such as pure mathematics, but that understanding of our own consciousness is simply beyond us.  It's not that the answer is mystical or impossible to express, just one that's beyond the abilities of the minds that we have.

Refuting his position is left as an exercise for the reader.  ;)



Nobilis

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
    • Nobilis Erotica Podcast
I'll be exploring this question in the fiction in my podcast very soon; a computer AI is equipping a fragment of its consciousness with a robot body in order to masquerade as a human and learn about love and sex. 

The idea that what makes someone human is love is an interesting one.  Does this mean that people who are incapable of giving or receiving love aren't human?



wakela

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 779
    • Mr. Wake
Though when they AIs do come (and I for one welcome our AI overlords) they may have no problem with love.  They may feel emotions stronger than humans, and nobody will them because they act like a bunch of babies.  They may have a hard time with other aspects of humanity, like fractions or something.



Leon Kensington

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 296
  • Supreme Overlord of Earth
Or they will be like D'Anna and have God Complexes.



Mfitz

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
    • Flying Whale Productions
Your question asks "What makes something ALIVE...?" So far all the debate has been about what makes something sapient. I find the first question far more interesting.

 I have no doubt that selfaware software/hardware combo will be developed some day, maybe someday soon, but I don't see us making artificial biological things from scratch (I'm not talking gene mods) in the near future.

We still don't really know the difference between a live animal and a piece of meat and I don't even think they are close to an ansewer there.

No one doubts mold, or flatworms are alive, but I don't think most people think they can love. 



ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680

We still don't really know the difference between a live animal and a piece of meat and I don't even think they are close to an ansewer there.

That's easy - a piece of meat is a part from a live animal where the processes are no longer functioning.
hmmm- that's not very useful is it?   :P

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


Mfitz

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
    • Flying Whale Productions
No because we really don't know why that happens. 

Why you can't just sew up the holes, give it a jumpstart and turn it back from meat to chicken



wakela

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 779
    • Mr. Wake
Quote
No one doubts mold, or flatworms are alive, but I don't think most people think they can love.
What a cold and hearltess thing to say.  My flatworm and I have had a very deep and caring relationship. 

My zoology teacher in college gave us a definition of life (takes in nutrients, produces waste, reproduces, etc), but admitted that Hardee's restaurants qualify.

Why isn't fire considered a life form? 



Tango Alpha Delta

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1778
    • Tad's Happy Funtime
I expect you'll draw out the philosophy majors

....Tad's line is bait I can't resist.  (BA Physics and Philosophy)


THAT's why I put it on the hook!  ;)

Your Mcguinn quote is apt, but... I think you missed my point.  You, too, wakela.  And Mfitz!

You see, what I was saying was not that Love is the litmus test for life or sapience, but rather the CAUSE of both.  Not in the linear "cause and effect" sense with which people usually tend to approach this kind of question, but rather in the nebulous, spontaneous, chemical reaction sense.  I am suggesting that there is a non-mystical, non-intuitive, un-defined force that will, when presented with a choice between order and chaos, will choose order.  I've seen in other places where people have demonstrated very thoroughly that nature tends toward entropy, but at the same time we are embroiled in a national debate that hinges on the belief that there MUST be a "creator" because the odds are against our spontaneous formation.

Well, I don't attach any spiritual signifigance to it, and I won't name it or say it has a will, but it is as pervasive as entropy and gravity.  But it is that force that needs for things to happen that benefit those of us who enjoy existence.  I will call that force "love".... mostly because "givashity" would probably not catch on.


This Wiki Won't Wrangle Itself!

I finally published my book - Tad's Happy Funtime is on Amazon!


Mfitz

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
    • Flying Whale Productions
Well, I believe in God, and have no problem with God as the alpha point of creation, the point where science stops having answers.  (I don't do ID though I'd hope God was a better engineer.) But, I would say it was something other than love that accounts for existence.  I'd say the need to create, to do, to make, to act, instead of just being.



slic

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 727
  • Stephen Lumini
Quote from: Roney
...but that understanding of our own consciousness is simply beyond us.
Perhaps for the majority of the populace at this time, sure,  but looks at the strides made in understanding memory.  This is like most sciences, our tools are too crude, but are getting more refined all the time.  I wouldn't put it past your lifetime, Roney - providing you've got more than a couple of years left ;)

Quote from: wakela
Why isn't fire considered a life form? 
It really depends on you definition.  Going with Mfitz, "I'd say the need to create, to do, to make, to act, instead of just being."  It's because it does nothing to continue it's existence. The scientific-y answer would be that plasma(fire) is considered a fourth state of matter - so in the same way liquid Mercury and frozen lemon juice are not alive, neither is fire.

Quote from: TAD
But it is that force that needs for things to happen that benefit those of us who enjoy existence.
I was going to give TAD a lame-o award for his love answer, but then he recovered with his other posting.  I agree and add "successful life", as there is likely forms of life that don't "giveashit" and they die off quickly. 

Quote from: TAD
I've seen in other places where people have demonstrated very thoroughly that nature tends toward entropy
That's science hocus-pocus.  A solid (take frozen water) achieves a structured steady state - not decay, no disorder.  In the "ultimate state of inert uniformity " sense - yes, I suppose given enough time all the energy will level out, like water in a big pool, but in "nature" as in the stuff outside, no.

To directly answer Leon_Kensington's question "...where is the dividing line between organism and AI?"  At this point it's biological versus mechanical - the day we learn to map memory engrams into an organic thing that changes.

As to what constitutes consciousness, life, etc.: Whatever can tell you, through it's actions, that it is aware, is alive.  So if a worm slithers away from pain, a tree grows extra branches because of extra sunlight, etc.  Of course, if you "upload" a consciousness into a hard drive, you screw my theory over, but I'll wait for that to happen before I change it ;)



FNH

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 309
  • F Napoleon H
    • Black Dog Of Doom
The podcast GeeksOn once asked, "Could you fall in love with a Cylon?"

As far as my own opinion, I think an A.I. becomes an organism if it's fully aware of its own consciousness. Of course, measuring that would be difficult, one of those "Know it when I see it" kinds of things.

Remember Orac from "Blakes 7", that box was self aware, sentient, but no one would ever have said alive.  Alive needs blood.  It's animal, vegetable or mineral... Or Fungi...  Or Virus...  Or Phage...  Anyway I dont think anyone accept anything as alive, unless it moves.


Russell Nash

  • Guest
This whole discussion just seems like a "Best of Data" from TNG.

Right now I kind of side with the pornography explanation: I know it when I see it.



Mfitz

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
    • Flying Whale Productions
I thought the same thing awhile back.



SFEley

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
    • Escape Artists, Inc.
In my smartass college days I came up with what I thought was a terrific definition for life: it's a localized, self-repeating reversal of entropy.

I doubt I'm the first person ever to think of that, and I've also never attempted to subject it to serious philosophical scrutiny.  But I still like it.  It works for me as a heuristic.  On the surface it seems to fit the behavior of life systems we know about, from the protein level to the planetary.

Under this definition, A.I. will be classifiable as "life" when it becomes capable of organizing new A.I. components from less organized locally available resources, which in turn are capable of organizing new ones themselves.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2007, 02:10:54 PM by SFEley »

ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine


wakela

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 779
    • Mr. Wake
Quote
In my smartass college days I came up with what I thought was a terrific definition for life: it's a localized, self-repeating reversal of entropy.
(I could have used only the relevant part of the quote, but I wanted to see how many times you admitting being a smartass would get repeated). ;)

This seems to pass the fire test, as in it does not define fire as a life form even though fire eats and replicates. 
Does it pass the McDonald's test?  Does McDonalds get defined as a life form?

And nanites that could replicate themselves like bacteria would get life form status, but an AI that could pass the Touring test wouldn't.   Maybe that's not a problem.



SFEley

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
    • Escape Artists, Inc.
Quote
In my smartass college days I came up with what I thought was a terrific definition for life: it's a localized, self-repeating reversal of entropy.
(I could have used only the relevant part of the quote, but I wanted to see how many times you admitting being a smartass would get repeated). ;)

I've never denied it.  >8->

Quote
Does it pass the McDonald's test?  Does McDonalds get defined as a life form?

Probably.  Corporations, communities, and societies could be classed as living systems under this litmus test.

I'm personally okay with that.  I'm also a casual fan of the Gaia Hypothesis, on aesthetic grounds if not scientific ones.

ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine


Roney

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 440
Quote
In my smartass college days
(I could have used only the relevant part of the quote, but I wanted to see how many times you admitting being a smartass would get repeated). ;)

Fun!

Quote
And nanites that could replicate themselves like bacteria would get life form status, but an AI that could pass the Touring* test wouldn't.   Maybe that's not a problem.

* My emphasis.  I'm assuming that the quoted text was inadvertently genius, and that wakela is not actually a genius.  Apologies to wakela if I'm being unfairly disparaging.  From the posts I've read, wakela may well be one.

Anyhoo, "touring" sounds like a great test of AI.  If it's interested enough and bored enough to go on holiday, it's gotta be alive.