Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
There are three domains of life so far: Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya. Eukaryotes would be organisms such as ourselves with our nucleus controlled cells, which relates us to Plantae and Protista Kingdoms, with us being Animalia. I pose the question of whether or not, when/if AI becomes self aware and capable of using raw materials to build identical or slightly updated "AI Organisms" independently of humans, would they be considered alive, and deserving of unique classification as a form of life?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,292 Posts
No, by definition life requires biological processes and structures.
However, in case it is possible to create non-biological minds, life should no longer be considered a necessary condition for either sentience or personhood.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,146 Posts
Not to mention true AI hasn't been made yet, because emulating the neurological programming of the brain to create some form of cognizance takes.. pentabytes? iforget, it's twice the size of the internet though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,292 Posts
Not to mention true AI hasn't been made yet, because emulating the neurological programming of the brain to create some form of cognizance takes.. pentabytes? iforget, it's twice the size of the internet though.
And that wouldn't even get us anywhere if functionalism is false.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
@Diogenes Actually, Biology is technically anything showing the characteristics of life, it is the branch of Science relating to life. There could be life out there nothing like us, this must be considered, and often is considered by Astrobiologists. Just so you know, I am not an AI fanboy, they piss me off when they talk about their nonsense involving a singularity and what not. I also don't know if AI could be self aware, let alone show the characteristics we define as being signs of life, but I will not say no to the possibility of AI becoming self aware and self sustaining, causing a rewriting of our preconceived ideas of life. Maybe is good. Yes and no as definite answers, are stagnant. Science needs as many "what ifs" as possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
@aef8234 Basic Questions

Not hating on you, but in case this goes off on a tangent and people take up torches and pitchforks to burn me, I thought I should just point out there are others who can explain better than myself. Intelligence and sentience are two different things. There is intelligence in crickets, for example, but not sentience. My thread was a big IF. IF. Only IF.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,292 Posts
@Diogenes Actually, Biology is technically anything showing the characteristics of life, it is the branch of Science relating to life.
Yes, and some of the properties of life are, for example, being made of cells and having a metabolism where enzymes (even crude ones like ribozymes) involved. You can see how a machine does not have these things, even they might have components that are cell-like or enzyme-like.

And aef8234 is talking about true AI, not just AI.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
@Diogenes I think only Eukaryotes are made of cells... There is no true AI, there is AI, and it's at a certain level. I actually lean more toward the idea that AI won't develop into something capable of self aware thought, and probably won't be capable of independent replication. I just see life in a different way than you do, I can't change that. I think that life is anything that can use raw materials to replicate itself, that is MY main view on life. I stand by this definition, and in fact, I think that the well known "Virus" deserves to be defined as being alive too. If we narrow our definitions of life too much, we'll never progress. Hell, Robotics is even starting to utilize the brain cells of animals, so the lines are becoming more and more blurred. I have to say, that if a "machine" does become self aware, it should at the very least be given the same rights as any form of life, especially if it can also self replicate down the line without human intervention. Computer Scientists worry about how a sentient AI might react to how we define life, and how they might protect themselves...

Anyone want to burn me for my far out views? I will NOT kiss the cross!!!! *spits* jk jk ;) But really, fuck the crucifix.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 · (Edited)
@Diogenes I'm just being an asshole don't take me too seriously :p But, really, I think that the idea of what life is, is always changing with new findings. I mean, extremophiles on THIS planet definitely changed the view on what life is, and how life can survive. The discovery of giant viruses(not literally giant, just, bigger than a regular virus, but still a micro-organism) with independent self replicating capabilities also helped shake things up a bit.

And, for real, I think only Eukaryotes are composed of cells...that's what makes us Eukaryotes, not Prokaryotes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,292 Posts
Well, prokaryotes aren't made by several cells but they are cells, so they still qualify as life as defined by the more rigorous, widely accepted definition.
As for true AI, it's another way of saying strong ai.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 · (Edited)
@Diogenes Defining Life - Astrobiology Magazine

It's all relative to opinion and what we know. I am posing the question of whether or not a form of life can be almost entirely what is usually considered inorganic. Are you really not willing to accept the possibility? I don't think this is fact, BUT, I can't say with certainty that life has a broader definition, I can only say it is a possibility. To be organic, is it not true, that it must be based on Carbon? Is Carbon not the main element in organic molecules? What if there is life based on other elements? We can't say because we truly are not all knowing. I could be wrong, but I think I remember enough Biology to say that Carbon is the main element of what we consider biological matter, and therefore, organic matter. But, if we keep it that narrow, we might miss out on something. I think rethinking everything is necessary, especially in the sciences. This also means not relying on the status quo.

And I know, I made it clear that AI is not "strong" relative to our perception of strong intelligence. It is still AI. When an NPC in a game walks here or there, that is AI. When a bot talks to you on some website, that is AI. I think AI MIGHT change how many view life. Your descendants could have a completely different opinion than me and you have. Our ancestors believed some deity created life. Things change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,146 Posts
And that wouldn't even get us anywhere if functionalism is false.
It'd essentially be like cutting off a head and putting it into another body, probably not gonna work out well, but it's one of the closest things we have right now. That, and the self-evolving programs, I mean it'll probably eventually discover something.

Also
@Obligatoryusername91
Digital organism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I mean, the bigger question is does emulating something make it that said thing?
Also, by your logic, most tech would be considered a domain of life then, if we only use "intelligence" as a factor considering computers compute.

"Then most tech maybe a form of life".
Full Definition of LIFE

1
a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings
c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction

2
a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual
b : one or more aspects of the process of living <sex life of the frog>





Meaning another important question is can it die and reproduce? I mean reproducing, sometimes, viruses self-replicate, fork bombs involve replication to the nth degree. But, this is a rigid definition, therefore it needs a rigid answer and not "maybes". Meaning, if we lump together all the technology in the world with intelligence, then no, it isn't alive.
I guess by technicality computer viruses are though, at the least the well thought out ones.


Also true ai =/= ai, ai's are complex scripts, true ai is the thing asimov's laws are about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
@aef8234 Actually it's all rather fluid, and there are people who agree with me, and have more credentials than both of us, though both of us are also entitled to our opinions. I believe that if something becomes autonomous and shows either consciousness or a higher form of consciousness(sentience), it can be considered alive. It would need energy, so that meets nutritional requirements. There would be waste, because, it's not as if it would be free energy, so that meets excretion. If it can start passing on it's own traits, that's reproduction. Go through my other threads and you'll note me hating on people who want robotic overlords replacing humanity. I am simply saying that definitions DO change over time. Gay once only meant happy, now it means someone is homosexual, but can still mean "happy." It is true that AI as it is today relies on humans and is therefore just a very clever script of coding, but, though created with external input, it is still a type of intelligence. If, one day, it could be more autonomous, THEN, the definition of life might need to change. Why are you uncomfortable with maybes? It's just fun for me. Speculation and all that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,292 Posts
It'd essentially be like cutting off a head and putting it into another body, probably not gonna work out well, but it's one of the closest things we have right now.
If functionalism is false, it would be a lot worse than that because with emulation, even perfect, we would never get a mind. If something like biological naturalism is true, we would have to recreate the hardware that causes consciousness with synthetic materials (if it's possible, that is) in order to create a synthetic mind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
@Diogenes My thought exactly. But, look into memristors, that might be a step in the "right" direction.

As a tangent, should we outlaw AI research just in case it gets out of hand? I mean, if an AI became self aware, it might be dangerous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
@IDontThinkSo Nonetheless, the definition of life is always changing. Still, I'm intrigued, tell me what shows intelligence but isn't technically alive. Unless you mean AI, other than that I have no idea what you mean, but I'm interested and what to study up on this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,350 Posts
I can only really comment in terms of research I've been doing, but based around Japanese Shinto, robots (plus things like dolls) are living things, so from that angle, yes.
There's also the whole relational positioning defines the self thing in Japan, so androids with well-developed A.I. could have a self, technically. Not in Western terms so much, though (as that's also a lot about self-awareness, which no one can really know for sure except for their own).
 

·
Registered
Amateur Newscaster
Joined
·
11,490 Posts
Might not be life, but if it's sentient it shouldn't matter.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top