What is life?

[duordi]

Duane, the major issue here to me is how do we define life. You seem to have limited your definition to people and perhaps, at some point in the future, computers, which as far as I can tell, you are defining as that at some point computer intelligence may reach a point of self-awareness (and as I have been owned by cats in the past, I am absolutely convinced that they, as one animal at least, are self-aware .

This is where I am running into the tree that prevents me from making a meaningful contribution to your discussion, and I do wish to, because it is a subject which has interested me for over 20 years.

I really would like to understand how you define your initial "what is life", as you seem to have denied life to anybody except people and (potentially) computers.

So, to try another angle, what would you suggest that would make a computer/computer program "alive" that would potentially make it immoral to turn the program off, or pull the plug out?

Norm.

Finally, someone on the same wavelength.
I did not intend to offend by changing the meaning of life but to try and define what a sentient being is.
I can not say a language necessarily constitutes being aware.
As for your cat.
Can you develop a language with him / her with the capacity to discuss the possibility of God’s existence?
Perhaps I should approach it this way.
Can you give an example of the level you can communicate with your cat if your cat was human.
Your cat is not acting like a person in a coma so he/she is beyond that point.
So try to define an equivalent human age or condition.
Duane

 

[duordi]

Well, I don't think a computer program can ever have what we usually think of as life. I think the terminology you should be using is sentience.

Anyway, I personally think that for the simple reason that computers process information in such a dramatically different way than humans do, when computers first become sentient, we won't notice it as sentience. And I fully expect that at some point in the future, it will be possible for a computer to become sentient.

Define sentience.
Or more precisely what would indicate to you that a being is sentient.

Duane

 

[duordi]

In truth, there is no way to define 'life'

The probem is our common sense. The words 'living' and 'dead' are created because they are useful. In science, they are not that useful.

For instance, lets look at the following definition of life, used by Richard Dawkins:

We know that any system needs energy to function.

We also know that energy usually 'wants' to spread out evenly.

When a system actively attempts to prevent energy from spreading out evenly, and so increases the time the system remains funcitoning, the system can be considered to be alive.

This defintion works.

But according to this defintion, a robot that uses solar power, and has a mechanism for following light sources around, is also alive.

Now think about this... why is this robot not alive? The answer is simple: because out common sense sais so. Scientifically, the robot could be considred alive depending on the parameters we chose for the scenario.

In the end, our common sense seems to betray us when trying to define 'life'.

You have stated the problem very well.

If it was easy to define the point of awarness of a beigns own thoughts I would not have asked for help.

It has been suggested that language defines sentience but animals communicate.

They are still not able to contemplate the existance of God.

I take it for granted that you could discuss this topic.

I could ask you if you realize you are thinking and you could respond truthfully that you do.

Duane

 

[duordi]

That's still a response to your environment. This just says that you have, a) learned that hating back does no good, or b) come to a moral belief that hating back is wrong, or both. Put simply, you cannot help but respond to your environment in some way.

A simple example is cold: if you go out in the cold, you either go back inside, put on a jacket, or shiver. No response at all is, quite simply, not a possible choice.

Even ignoring a person can be considered a response, because if you are consciously aware of them, then you have made a conscious decision on how to respond to them.

I agree that every action I make can be defined as a response however my response may not be controlled by my enlivenment because I have a free will.
By my will I can choose to give a response which has no correlation to the input I receive other then by chance occurrences.

Duane

 

[h2whoa]

A dolphin can communicate but it is not aware.
Duane

Interestingly, that actually probably is not true.

Dolphins are one of those rare creatures that can display self-recognition when faced with their reflection.

It is quite a difficult game to play to declare that something is not aware, for the following reason. And actually this reason is the crux of why the whole discussion, based around your definition of life at least, is impossible to answer. How can one ascertain whether an organism is aware or merely thinks it is aware?

This is why, defining life merely through its sense of awareness is a springboard into philosophy more than science.

You are basing your judgment of awareness on your own experience, but that is not to negate the experience another person or even other animal may have of awareness.

Am I aware? Or am I responding in merely one of a few preset manners to the virtual environment that this thread has created?

 

[-Truth-]

Life is a feedback loop growing by means of feeding on life.

 

[Loudmouth]

It has been suggested that language defines sentience but animals communicate.

They are still not able to contemplate the existance of God.

How do you know that dolphins can not contemplate the existence of a god or the supernatural. Do dolphins think we are non-sentient because they can not tell us about their gods?

Do dolphins believe in a rain god? A sun god? Do they believe that natural phenomena have supernatural causes? How can we know this?

 

[Loudmouth]

Life is a feedback loop growing by means of feeding on life.

I have always preferred "replication and organized metabolism" as the definition of life. This would exclude fire and viruses while including everything in the commonly held taxonomic trees.

 

[JohnR7]

Duane, the major issue here to me is how do we define life.

Nasa has been working on this question for a while now. So they will be able to determine if they have found life on other planets or not.

So my question is: Why should we use a different definition from the one Nasa uses?

 

[duordi]

Interestingly, that actually probably is not true.

Dolphins are one of those rare creatures that can display self-recognition when faced with their reflection.

It is quite a difficult game to play to declare that something is not aware, for the following reason. And actually this reason is the crux of why the whole discussion, based around your definition of life at least, is impossible to answer. How can one ascertain whether an organism is aware or merely thinks it is aware?

This is why, defining life merely through its sense of awareness is a springboard into philosophy more than science.

You are basing your judgment of awareness on your own experience, but that is not to negate the experience another person or even other animal may have of awareness.

Am I aware? Or am I responding in merely one of a few preset manners to the virtual environment that this thread has created?

So you are saying that a dolphin realizes it is thinking?

Then why can I not form a language with the dolphin which we can use to discuss Gods existance.

Duane

 

[duordi]

Duane, the major issue here to me is how do we define life. You seem to have limited your definition to people and perhaps, at some point in the future, computers, which as far as I can tell, you are defining as that at some point computer intelligence may reach a point of self-awareness (and as I have been owned by cats in the past, I am absolutely convinced that they, as one animal at least, are self-aware .

This is where I am running into the tree that prevents me from making a meaningful contribution to your discussion, and I do wish to, because it is a subject which has interested me for over 20 years.

I really would like to understand how you define your initial "what is life", as you seem to have denied life to anybody except people and (potentially) computers.

So, to try another angle, what would you suggest that would make a computer/computer program "alive" that would potentially make it immoral to turn the program off, or pull the plug out?

Norm.

Well if I found out your cat had an opinion about God's existence I would have to say he/she was sentient.
But you can’t be sentient for your cat.

If the cat or the computer was trying to find out if I was sentient then its ability to think would be verified.

Duane

 

[Opethian]

Why do you assume that you have free will? We are after all physical matter that follows physical laws.

 

[duordi]

Nasa has been working on this question for a while now. So they will be able to determine if they have found life on other planets or not.

So my question is: Why should we use a different definition from the one Nasa uses?

So I am not allowed independent thought?

I must say John you feel free to invoke your independent opinions quite often.

NASA is confining its assumptions to the evolutionary developoment of life.
I am supprised that you of all people would want to limit the discussion in this way.

Duane

 

[JohnR7]

Well if I found out your cat had an opinion about God's existence

Animals just reflect us. If we are loving, then our animals will be loving.
If people are mean, then their animals will be mean and sometimes their own animals turn on them.

Christians are to reflect God and His love for us.

 

[JohnR7]

So I am not allowed independent thought?

You can do whatever you want to do. If you do not want to answer my question, then don't answer it. I realize you are off doing your own thing, but that does not mean you should disregard what science is doing. After all, that is what this is, a science board to talk about science.

I did have a little something to contribute to the discussion, but I will pass on that now.

 

[duordi]

Why do you assume that you have free will? We are after all physical matter that follows physical laws.

But we have a rebellious and independent minds as indicated by the existence of this web site.

Duane

 

[Opethian]

Yet your mind is just an information intermediate of your physical brain. Your thoughts are the result of processes going on in matter, and follow physical laws. Free will is an illusion that was spawned by humans' self-consciousness.

 

[duordi]

You can do whatever you want to do. If you do not want to answer my question, then don't answer it. I realize you are off doing your own thing, but that does not mean you should disregard what science is doing. After all, that is what this is, a science board to talk about science.

I did have a little something to contribute to the discussion, but I will pass on that now.

I found much on the topic but nothing about how the determination is made if intelligence?

If you have some information please don't keep me in the dark.

Duane

 

[Beastt]

My definition of life is specific to humans to allow the distinction of humans from animals and plants etc.

This is necessary to consider if a computer program will attain this ability.

Duane

Humans are animals. There is no credible distinction such as that which you suggest.

Human brains are animal brains and function in precisely the same manner. The difference between a human brain and the brain of a chimpanzee is primarily the number of repetitions occurring during the development of the brain. As an organism developes, there are genes which determine the number of times the first neural cell will replicate, and the number of times each resulting neural cell will replicate. Thusly, this follows a standard binary sequence of growth, (i.e. 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 - 16 - 32 - 64 - 128 - 256 - 512 - 1024 - 2048...). The difference between the chimp brain and human brain is indicative of two extra replication sequences in the human.

All animal brains are made up of neurons. And at any reasonable level of analysis, a neuron is a neuron is a neuron. You can't isolate the way a human neuron functions from that of a chimpanzee or a sea slug, for that matter. The difference is in the number of neurons, not the functioning of those neurons. The key is in the genes passed to each species from its parent(s). Take a single neuron and set a gene to cause that neuron to undergo a dozen rounds of cell division and you have enough neurons to run a sea slug. Change that single gene so that the neurons undergo 25-rounds of cell division and you have enough neurons to make a human brain. Stop 2-3 rounds short of that and you have a chimp brain.

Sea Slug - Neurons 2^12
Chimpanzee - Neurons 2^23
Human - Neurons 2^25

(NOTE: While the reference to the genetic function which determine the number of neurons is accurate and the article from which the information came does claim 2^25 as an accurate representation, most sources indicate human brains contain closer to 100 billion neurons, (approx. 2^37), which seems more accurate. The point here to focus upon then, is that all one must do is alter the gene which determines the degree of replication for the first neural cell to create the difference between a human brain and that of another animal.)

​

Your division of human and animal brains simply doesn't exist. We are animals.

(Source: Discover Magazine, April 2006)


Computers, as they work today, are not going to be aware of what they are thinking because they don't think. They follow instructions. A computer is a vast series of switches which are "flipped" on the basis of the settings of other switches. Think of them as being very much 2-dimensional. Actual thought appears to require something mimicking a neural network where some components are capable of monitoring and analyzing the states of other components within the network as the processes of the network progress. Think of a neural network as being more 3-dimensional.

If you have a 3-way switch in your house which allows you to control the state of a light from either switch, you have the very basic building blocks of a computer. Each switch, when flipped, can determine the state of the light based upon the state of the other switch. You can think of that as roughly representing a 2-transistor processor. Of course the processors used in computers have substantially more transistors, (The old Pentium 4 Prescott version, contained 125,000,000 while todays Core Duo has more than 200 million). And today's processors are distinctly more complex that the wiring in your home. But the principles do allow comparison.

 

[duordi]

Yet your mind is just an information intermediate of your physical brain. Your thoughts are the result of processes going on in matter, and follow physical laws. Free will is an illusion that was spawned by humans' self-consciousness.

Yes but if I have control over that process suddenly I am able to decide how the proces will continue.
At that point I am both responsable for my actions and self directed.

Duane