Thread: Digital Organisms

Originally Posted by really

Do you think "life" or the "chemical reactions" are accidental?

At the moment, as I said, there should be nothing special about life. Accidental has such a negative meaning... If our science is correct, then everything, along with the "chemical reactions of life" is following certain rules. So in short I'm thinking about determinism or destiny. If we want to say that points to god and design, then go ahead. I say that I don't know what's going on, or what everything means. I'd like to though. What do you think?

Originally Posted by really

Does life manifest out of the brain?

Wait, what?

Are you actually countering his question with that?

Life isn't defined very well, but I think it is very obvious that a brain isn't required to be alive

Anyway, which came first? Software, or Hardware?

Originally Posted by Bonsay

At the moment, as I said, there should be nothing special about life. Accidental has such a negative meaning... If our science is correct, then everything, along with the "chemical reactions of life" is following certain rules. So in short I'm thinking about determinism or destiny. If we want to say that points to god and design, then go ahead. I say that I don't know what's going on, or what everything means. I'd like to though. What do you think?

Following certain rules can still include a "will" and "intention", but perhaps they follow rules too.

I find it interesting to consider that the Universe is not "out there" to be measured, but we are actually, totally part of it, and ultimately nothing is separate from ourselves. We are part of the universe, and we belong to the universe. Introspection can lead one's awareness to one's source.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Wait, what?

Are you actually countering his question with that?

Life isn't defined very well, but I think it is very obvious that a brain isn't required to be alive

Anyway, which came first? Software, or Hardware?

I wasn't "countering" his question, but it is related to "life".

As for "which came first", it really depends on which point of observation. But if consciousness is beyond causality, there is no time or space, and thus no "first". Hardware is definitely prior to software, nevertheless.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Yes, but these programs reproduce, they require energy, they have sensory perception, they eat and obey specific physical laws to their universe.

I didn't say Organic Life^TM, I meant just living. They live inside of that program, where as you live inside of the universe. You require certain things to stay alive-- So do they.

You reproduce, and so do they; You evolve-- So do they. They meet all of the requirements of life, they just aren't made of organic compounds. Oh, and they have a genetic program that comes with inherent limitations. And so do you.

Life is Life, a Computer program that re enacts life is... A computer program.
Maybe you should get out more.

Originally Posted by SKA

Life is Life, a Computer program that re enacts life is... A computer program.
Maybe you should get out more.

Doesn't the "act" of reenactment of life make the computer program life itself?
Ok I don't know the official definition of life. But this is the philosophy section and a virtual reality is a sort of a reality by itself. Why wouldn't his virtual bacteria be alive if he makes it reenact the life we see "outside".

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Doesn't the "act" of reenactment of life make the computer program life itself?
Ok I don't know the official definition of life. But this is the philosophy section and a virtual reality is a sort of a reality by itself. Why wouldn't his virtual bacteria be alive if he makes it reenact the life we see "outside".

I personally don't think there can be a clearcut, scientific defenition of what life is. Life is so refined and rich it is hardily definable. Science seems to ignore the X element I would like to call soul.
An element that doesn't allow itself to be caught in words just like that. And who needs an official defenition of what life is anywayz? What for?

Even if such a program can have so many different options, using 0s and 1s, a living being still has infinitely more options. Such a fluid ability living beings have, a rigid computer-program re-enacting life can only an insult Life by claiming to be Life. And Organic life has a complex Relationship between mind and Body. Can such a disembodied program be called a mind if it has no such complex body-mind structures? What about sexual desires? hunger?

Also very notable; Living beings have a free will. Programs don't; They either chose very randomly between the pre-programmed options they have, or allways make the decision with the best possible outcome; Either way very unlike actual living beings would.
How come in your definition of "Life" you seem to have excluded Emotions? And Doubt?
Can such a program be depressed? Can such a program have stress or a Burn out? Can a program like that change it's mind about an earlier made decision?
Does such a program have a fantasy? Would such a program be able to Dream? Or Feel Emotions? Or other inexpressible and abstrac sensations such as we human beings can?


Interresting topic.

Well I guess the problem would need to evolve. I mean the first cell never "thought" or had the need for something. Things just happened. I view it the same way now. Things are just happening. Emotions? Dreams? I explain such things as interaction between different cells. Who am I? Is there free will? I don't know and I don't see why should I? Is such a thing expected to be known by someone 18 years old, or anyone for that matter? I personally think that people who say or think they "know" are in a way giving up. Giving up, from my point of view of course, on finding out the truth.

As I said. When I look at things from this specific point of view and follow step by step I never get to the point that appears to be obvious for everyone on the planet. Emotions, whatever else involved in nature should also be nature and shouldn't be excused from following the rules. So why should life be anything more then the interaction of atoms. And from that there shouldn't be a problem to jump, in theory, to the brain and "consciousness". That's why I see real AI as equal to us. Even when the controversial subject of free will is involved there is still the logic I presented before. Real brain -> fake brain are the same. If you say you deny the "soul" to an AI, then I don't see why I shouldn't deny the soul of anyone else on the planet. I can prove neither to myself and all have the equal objective evidence of existence.

How does this fit into my subjective perception? It doesn't. I'm guessing I will never know what it's about but that won't stop me from trying.

I still dare to bet that the imagination of a human being beats such a computer program any time

I'm still convinced Life and digitally re-enacted life can't be the same thing because of this X-element I find pretty impossible to describe.
Thanks, however, for making me extra driven to look deeper into and defining what exactly this X element is.

I will ponder on this for a long time.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Well the only way I get to see the world points to this. You are dead, then you are born, then you die. The only time you can be conscious is when you have the brain. To the other question - I guess life manifests out of complex chemical reactions.

How would you know wether we can only be conscious during the time we have a brain?

Also there's no proof that thoughts and feelings, and all of consciousness, are generated in the brain. It's merely speculative.
The Dalai lama and a bunch of scientists had this arguement once and the Dalai lama responded with a return question that made these scientist seriously doubt their own theories.

These Scientists said: "We have the assumption that all thoughts and feelings are caused by chemical reactions and changes within the human brain"
The Dalai Lama responded:"Could it be the other way around? That these Chemical reactions and changes within the brain are caused by thoughts and feelings?"
These Scientists thought for a while and replied: "Yes, but we generally have the assumption that all thoughts and feelings are caused by chemical reactions and changes within the human brain". Basically inable to admit that that rather busted their theory, the stubbornly repeated themselves.

Makes you wnder does it? Cuz what proof is it really that chemical reactions and changes in the brain synchronise with thoughts and feelings, really? To say these Chemical reactions and changes are cause of thoughts and feelings, is pure speculation. It's bogus proof that proves nothing at all. At best it proves that thoughts and feelings seem to synchronise with Chemical reactions and changes within the Brain. But no more than just that.

And that's my problem with the additude of so many scientists: They assume too much. Why assume that the Definition of Life you mentioned, that that program meets, IS really the Definition of life?

Originally Posted by SKA

How would you know wether we can only be conscious during the time we have a brain?

Also there's no proof that thoughts and feelings, and all of consciousness, are generated in the brain. It's merely speculative.
The Dalai lama and a bunch of scientists had this arguement once and the Dalai lama responded with a return question that made these scientist seriously doubt their own theories.

These Scientists said: "We have the assumption that all thoughts and feelings are caused by chemical reactions and changes within the human brain"
The Dalai Lama responded:"Could it be the other way around? That these Chemical reactions and changes within the brain are caused by thoughts and feelings?"

This made these scientists pretty quiet. Makes you wnder does it? Cuz what proof is it really that chemical reactions and changes in the brain synchronise with thoughts and feelings, really? To say these Chemical reactions and changes are cause of thoughts and feelings, is pure speculation. It's bogus proof that proves nothing at all. At best it proves that thoughts and feelings seem to synchronise with Chemical reactions and changes within the Brain. But no more than just that.

And that's my problem with the additude of so many scientists: They assume too much. Why assume that the Definition of Life you mentioned, that that program meets, IS really the Definition of life?

At the core, I wouldn't know if you're only conscious while alive. It's just that It has to be so, since it is in conflict with my world view and my world view is the only thing I have to work with.

I am very aware that all I think I know is basically an assumption. And the Dalai Lamas response isn't really something new to me and neither would it be if I haven't heard/thought about it before. Does it really matter what way you turn it if it's always the same. I didn't deny my own existence, even if I had talked about all things objectively. I'm very aware of myself, reality and the implications of "their" apparent relationship. Let's just say I'm not limiting myself to anything. I'm trying to be open-minded.

The thing that I don't like about these soul-human explanations is that it somehow separates you from the universe. As I said before, I don't see the general difference between objects in the universe. A soul operating chemicals would then make humans special and break apart the apparent wholeness of the universe. It's possible, why not. But possibilities don't carry weight because we could say that pretty much everything is possible. I guess that this soul could be some godly entity, not limited to one thing or person. But then I don't see why AI wasn't possible.

It's not that I totally deny everything that objects science. As I see it, there are some spiritual aspects of reality. And by this I'm also not implying some absurd and rather limited ideas of several world religions, which I, even though agnostic, see as rather stupid. It will continue to contemplate on it, but again won't try to find a definition and express myself, but rather to gain some sort of enlightenment if possible, as I don't see how I could ever comprehend any real truth on this matter.

To your last question. If we can observe and designate as something alive to an extent, then it shouldn't be too hard to do it for a virtual universe. There would have to be new definitions made to accommodate them and there would also be the question how much the virtual universe is comparable to the real one. I guess this is more of a philosophical question then a practical one. But as I said throughout the thread, I was mostly talking about a hypothetical brain replica and it being alive, along with it's "soul".

At the core, I wouldn't know if you're only conscious while alive. It's just that It has to be so, since it is in conflict with my world view and my world view is the only thing I have to work with

It HAS to be so, just because if it weren't your worldview would collapse? Well the truth isn't constructed to keep our worldview from harm. Maybe this worldview needs destruction so it can be rebuilt and reconsidered to be in closer accordance to newly found aspects of the truth about Life, instead of the other way around.

Maybe we CAN comprehend alot more if we realise all of existance is vibrating Energy and we can expand our consciousness to levels where we're able to percieve higher energies/ vibrations. Science in most cases is very limited to 4 dimentions, leading it to see a small part of "Truth" and declaring it to be the complete truth.

This is why time and time again Science makes bold statements and later, when new discoveries have been made that contradict these previously made statements, they put them selves to shame and their credibility falls more and more. Rick Strassman is a Scientist who has removed these blinds.

That response wasn't meant to say that "I don't want to think about that because I believe this". I was trying to say something I said in a paragraph lower. If there are many possibilities, there is no reason to choose one over the other.

I'm all for letting go and being free, falling into endless possibilities. But unless we all actually reach some form of enlightenment... who will cure cancers, diseases, get food, clean water, build houses etc. There is a reason I keep the world view, it's because it is supported by proof from the universe itself. Yes we don't know everything and make mistakes, but the elementary property of the scientific method is to tell things as they are. Why should I sack everything because somebody offers an idea without proof.

I don't know about vibrations or how new dimensions should or should not look. Perhaps we can do what you speak of. But I still don't see how this is in conflicts with the reality our science builds. So it acts on a specific plain of reality. Is there anything more, well apart from the place my consciousness dwells...I don't know.

I don't see why you should criticize science itself. It does in it's way show truth. Not the whole truth, but it's doing it's best by researching one thing we all hold in common, which is the real world/universe. Why should anyone expect it to conform with an area completely alien to it.

Consciousness of a living being seems to be layered. Layered in a sort of "Depth" I find hard to describe.

Somebody help me out here wording this if you understand me.

Originally Posted by SKA

Consciousness of a living being seems to be layered. Layered in a sort of "Depth" I find hard to describe.

Somebody help me out here wording this if you understand me.

The complexity of consciousness is non-linear and incomprehensible to the linear mind. Yes?

Originally Posted by SKA

I personally don't think there can be a clearcut, scientific defenition of what life is. Life is so refined and rich it is hardily definable. Science seems to ignore the X element I would like to call soul.
An element that doesn't allow itself to be caught in words just like that. And who needs an official defenition of what life is anywayz? What for?

Even if such a program can have so many different options, using 0s and 1s, a living being still has infinitely more options. Such a fluid ability living beings have, a rigid computer-program re-enacting life can only an insult Life by claiming to be Life. And Organic life has a complex Relationship between mind and Body. Can such a disembodied program be called a mind if it has no such complex body-mind structures? What about sexual desires? hunger?

Also very notable; Living beings have a free will. Programs don't; They either chose very randomly between the pre-programmed options they have, or allways make the decision with the best possible outcome; Either way very unlike actual living beings would.
How come in your definition of "Life" you seem to have excluded Emotions? And Doubt?
Can such a program be depressed? Can such a program have stress or a Burn out? Can a program like that change it's mind about an earlier made decision?
Does such a program have a fantasy? Would such a program be able to Dream? Or Feel Emotions? Or other inexpressible and abstrac sensations such as we human beings can?


Interresting topic.

No microbe on earth has emotions.

Life would be anything that actively responds to stimuli. So, if a program within a program actively reacts to stimuli inside of that program, why can't that be considered life?

The only problem you run into with digital organisms is the memory to be able to process all of the things you have going on inside of the program at a good speed when you have millions of organisms.

And to answer your question-- Yes, if you had enough time an memory, you could produce a program that could display abstract behavior.

Also very notable; Living beings have a free will. Programs don't; They either chose very randomly between the pre-programmed options they have, or allways make the decision with the best possible outcome; Either way very unlike actual living beings would.

Well, this is just, uh, not true...

Living organisms don't have 'free will'-- They just aren't limited by how fast their actions can be processed.. And any good ALife simulator would be low-level-- Programs don't choose or make any decisions, they just execute their genetic program and react to external stimuli. Whatever that may be.

Originally Posted by really

The complexity of consciousness is non-linear and incomprehensible to the linear mind. Yes?

Both our minds and computers work non-linearly. It's complex, but far from incomprehensible.

Originally Posted by SKA

Why assume that the Definition of Life you mentioned, that that program meets, IS really the Definition of life?

But WE decide what that definition is. The definition is just a bunch of words we use to sort "living" and "nonliving" things. You disagree with the above definition?

Also, the scientists weren't speculating, unless you consider every account of someone taking a mind-altering substance to be purely speculative...

Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy

Both our minds and computers work non-linearly. It's complex, but far from incomprehensible.

How is this so?

Originally Posted by really

How is this so?

I'm not really sure what you mean. All of physics and higher math is non-linear. All computers work on logic circuits which are non-linear. Our minds wouldn't even function if they were linear. What are you asking?

What do you mean by linear precisely?

Every computer can be modelled as a Turing Machine, and as Turing Machines are essentially just lines, I don't see how anything could be any more linear.

Well with regards to computers I'll use the wikipedia definition for linear circuits:

A linear circuit is an electric circuit in which, for a sinusoidal input voltage of frequency f, any output of the circuit (the current through any component, or the voltage between any two points) is also sinusoidal with frequency f. Note that the output need not be in phase with the input.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_circuit

These are very basic circuits. Computers, phones, iPods, whatever all use logic circuits. These operate in a non-linear fashion. Linear circuits wouldn't be able to run complicated programming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_circuit

With regards to physics and math, I use the definition of a nonlinear system:

In mathematics, a nonlinear system is a system which is not linear, that is, a system which does not satisfy the superposition principle, or whose output is not proportional to its input. Less technically, a nonlinear system is any problem where the variable(s) to be solved for cannot be written as a linear combination of independent components.

Many complex physical processes are modeled as nonlinear systems. Things like general relativity and AC power flow are nonlinear. In math, the study of nonlinear systems gave rise to things like chaos theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_systems

Now, Turing machines are said to be machines that can do the work of any computer program. A true Turing machine could carry out the function of every program out there, even logic problems that would use a nonlinear circuit or logic gate. All that says to me is that a Turing machine could eventually be powerful enough to model your brain. Not that computers never will be able to because of some problem with linear/nonlinear properties.

Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy

I'm not really sure what you mean. All of physics and higher math is non-linear. All computers work on logic circuits which are non-linear. Our minds wouldn't even function if they were linear. What are you asking?

For one example, is computer math or logic (and circuitry) beyond the Newtonian paradigm of causality? How?

Originally Posted by really

For one example, is computer math or logic (and circuitry) beyond the Newtonian paradigm of causality? How?

May I ask if you are using the actual definition of linear, or just a subjective view of what you think linear is? Because causality is involved in basically all systems, both linear and nonlinear, including the human brain.

Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy

May I ask if you are using the actual definition of linear, or just a subjective view of what you think linear is? Because causality is involved in basically all systems, both linear and nonlinear, including the human brain.

But causality is limited and it is sequential. That which is non-linear is beyond causality and not definable or predictable. Causality may be used in a non-linear system, but that does not mean it encompasses the non-linear realm or is non-linear in itself. Otherwise, there would be infinite causes to Reality, but there is actually none in that sense.

Originally Posted by really

That which is non-linear is beyond causality and not definable or predictable.

Well that answers my question. You aren't using the actual scientific definition of linearity. In the realm of mathematics and physical systems, that which is nonlinear is not beyond causality at all. Its outcomes can be complex enough as to not be predictable, but does that not mean it is beyond causality. Causality says, basically, that every cause has an effect. With a complex enough system, the effect may not be predictable, but it still has a cause. When it comes to math and physics, all linear and nonlinear systems are subject to causality.