Digital Organisms

Do you consider digital organisms, as in the ones in programs like Evolve 4.0, to be living?

Why/ Why not?

I, personally consider them to be living things because they evolve, have genetic code, reproduce, eat, and are made of cells.

I've been playing with Evolve 4 for a while now, and I've seen some pretty amazing things with the little programs that evolve out of some of the simulations I've run. Such as an organism that avoided barriers by several cells, or an organism that actively searched for spores to fertilize.

That's a great question.. I originally told myself that I wouldn't consider any machine alive, even if it possessed real self-awareness. My definition of life is generally restricted to organic compounds that have the ability to create more of themselves on at least the cellular level. I mean, imagine the concept of a ghost, or the idea of the undead. According to the myths, they are not considered alive, regardless of whatever feelings they may be capable of showing. Digital life, to me, was a simulation of real life. But what does that mean? Digital life would still follow rules not unlike our own, and to suggest that the reality presented to us through a program is "not real" opens up an entirely new can of worms.

It's a very, very intriguing question. As of right now, I am undecided.

No, I wouldn't consider it real or not. It's a computer program.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jorge

No, I wouldn't consider it real or not. It's a computer program.

---

A computer program obeys rules that define the reality it encompasses.
Our universe obeys rules that define the reality it encompasses. The program still exists inside our own reality, sure, much the same way our dreams do, but what is it about a program's reality that disqualifies it for harboring some form of life? What conditions must be met in order to sustain a life-form within a given reality? I don't have the answer to this question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by invader_tech

A computer program obeys rules that define the reality it encompasses.

---

Computers are limited in that sense, because they can only work with the logical standard within which they process. A hypothetical system. Thus, it will not be a direct replicate, especially when it must process something from a non-linear domain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jorge

No, I wouldn't consider it real or not. It's a computer program.

---

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.

To be honest it's just semantics really.

I suppose it would be a little pretentious to say they can't be called life; who's to say that our universe isn't in fact a universal Turing machine?

It's more of an academic question, because simulators like Avida have been used in studying evolution, so if the programs being worked on can't be considered a form of life, then how can we study biological evolution with them?

Well, life is just a word. It's a pretty iffy word too, when it comes to what makes one set of chemical reactions life and another not. I say it's a bit of a non-issue.

It's complicated. In a way I figure it can be considered life, but not organic life of that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Well, life is just a word. It's a pretty iffy word too, when it comes to what makes one set of chemical reactions life and another not. I say it's a bit of a non-issue.

---

So you consider digital organisms to be alive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Computers are limited in that sense, because they can only work with the logical standard within which they process. A hypothetical system. Thus, it will not be a direct replicate, especially when it must process something from a non-linear domain.

---

Imagine then that you took one of these programs and gave it a physical body and sensory "organs" through which it could interact with our real world. Would this program's processing limitations be so much unlike our own? There are plenty of organic life-forms that process information in ways that make their perception of the real world different from our own (heat-sensing organs in snakes is one example). Other organisms are programmed to perform entirely unique functions as well (web-spinning, particular bird nests, mating rituals among fish, etc). So what exactly do you mean by being limited because of the logical standard within which they process? If you can give me a real example of "something from a non-linear domain", it'd help clarify what you're trying to say for me.

I would say such a thing is "alive" but not sentient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by invader_tech

Imagine then that you took one of these programs and gave it a physical body and sensory "organs" through which it could interact with our real world. Would this program's processing limitations be so much unlike our own? There are plenty of organic life-forms that process information in ways that make their perception of the real world different from our own (heat-sensing organs in snakes is one example). Other organisms are programmed to perform entirely unique functions as well (web-spinning, particular bird nests, mating rituals among fish, etc). So what exactly do you mean by being limited because of the logical standard within which they process? If you can give me a real example of "something from a non-linear domain", it'd help clarify what you're trying to say for me.

---

A circuit cannot mirror the nonlinear domain, thus it is restricted to the linear. It can only do it hypothetically. Computers will never be able to emulate human life or human intelligence exactly, because human intelligence functions within the nonlinear field of consciousness (of greater dimension and power). A virtual reality would be limited to the paradigm of causality and logical programming.

If that were to be implemented into a brain, it would hold a totally different purpose altogether.

Quote:

---

So you consider digital organisms to be alive?

---

I suppose so. But then another biologist may restrict life to that which arose via natural selection acting upon organic compounds: there is no universally accepted definition (hence the disagreement about viruses). It really doesn't matter what you call it, it is what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

A circuit cannot mirror the nonlinear domain, thus it is restricted to the linear. It can only do it hypothetically. Computers will never be able to emulate human life or human intelligence exactly, because human intelligence functions within the nonlinear field of consciousness (of greater dimension and power). A virtual reality would be limited to the paradigm of causality and logical programming.

If that were to be implemented into a brain, it would hold a totally different purpose altogether.

---

I don't think 'linear' means what you think it means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

A circuit cannot mirror the nonlinear domain, thus it is restricted to the linear. It can only do it hypothetically. Computers will never be able to emulate human life or human intelligence exactly, because human intelligence functions within the nonlinear field of consciousness (of greater dimension and power). A virtual reality would be limited to the paradigm of causality and logical programming.

If that were to be implemented into a brain, it would hold a totally different purpose altogether.

---

So... we just make a computer-brain. Will that make a difference? Is there something in our brain that makes us different?

I don't think so. There's nothing 'intelligent' about carbon and hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen and sodium etcetera.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

A circuit cannot mirror the nonlinear domain, thus it is restricted to the linear. It can only do it hypothetically. Computers will never be able to emulate human life or human intelligence exactly, because human intelligence functions within the nonlinear field of consciousness (of greater dimension and power). A virtual reality would be limited to the paradigm of causality and logical programming.

If that were to be implemented into a brain, it would hold a totally different purpose altogether.

---

How can a circuit not be nonlinear?

What did you think a logic circuit was? :?

If this, then that, else, this other thing. That isn't linear.

Quote:

---

I would say such a thing is "alive" but not sentient.

---

Why not?

In my ALife program I've been working on, each organism has the ability to 'feel' everything around it using a simple collision system. With this, an organism could recognize and respond to stimuli, i.e. Another organism near it

That's what sentience is.

Quote:

---

I suppose so. But then another biologist may restrict life to that which arose via natural selection acting upon organic compounds: there is no universally accepted definition (hence the disagreement about viruses). It really doesn't matter what you call it, it is what it is.

---

Okay; do you consider them to be alive in the same sense that you would take a bacteria to be alive?

I'd really rather not get into a discussion about definitions...

Quote:

---

Okay; do you consider them to be alive in the same sense that you would take a bacteria to be alive?

I'd really rather not get into a discussion about definitions...

---

But that's all this whole thread is; a discussion about the definition of life. How can you ask if a digital organism is life or not if you don't want to talk about what counts as life?

Your new question is no different from your old question and my answer is still the same.

Bacteria meet pretty much all of any of the suggested criteria of life.

If you include a new criterion than life must be made of organic matter then digital organisms are not life. If you don't then they might be.

This is really the same argument as whether or not viruses are life or not. Fact is there is no real answer, it just depends on how you want to define life. Some people include in the definition of life, 'is made of cells', and therefore discount viruses. Others do not. It doesn't make a difference to anything.

No, this isn't a discussion of what universally constitues life, this is about whether you see the two as the same.

Hence,

Quote:

---

do you consider them to be alive in the same sense that you would take a bacteria to be alive?

---

Obviously this involves altering the 'definition' of life, but that's not what I'm talking about. I am asking whether or not you see them as alive in the same way you would see a bacteria or something to be alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

A virtual reality would be limited to the paradigm of causality and logical programming.

---

I was under the assumption our universe worked according to the same principles? Can you explain the difference? Hmm, by ream example I meant that I wanted some kind of situation that a program might not be able to work with. I know very little with respect to computer science, to be quite honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Why not?

In my ALife program I've been working on, each organism has the ability to 'feel' everything around it using a simple collision system. With this, an organism could recognize and respond to stimuli, i.e. Another organism near it

That's what sentience is.

---

I believe sentience implies self awareness, something that no program has reportedly achieved.

I see a bacterium as life because it satisfies all of the common criteria for life.

Whether or not I consider a digital organism life would depend on which criteria we are using. If it satisfies them, I will, and if it doesn't, I won't.

It sounds to me like you're attatching some sort of mystical significance to 'life'. It's just a word, used to describe certain sets of chemical reactions. Words don't have consequences or objective reality. Who cares? It makes as little difference to the nature of a digital organism as deciding to call it Fred.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I see a bacterium as life because it satisfies all of the common criteria for life.

Whether or not I consider a digital organism life would depend on which criteria we are using. If it satisfies them, I will, and if it doesn't, I won't.

It sounds to me like you're attatching some sort of mystical significance to 'life'. It's just a word, used to describe certain sets of chemical reactions. Words don't have consequences or objective reality. Who cares? It makes as little difference to the nature of a digital organism as deciding to call it Fred.

---

Holy shit, dude. I'm asking you if you're brain identifies digital organisms in the same way it identifies with what you know as living things. This about how you see things, not definitions.

When you see a digital organism, do you think "alive" or "not alive"?

That's the question. It's a very simple one. Yes or No will do.

I have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to be completely lost in semantics.

What on Earth does alive 'look like'?? I mean if we were talking about a patch of moss, alive would 'look like' a green splodge.

You can't tell if something is alive by looking at it because living things look completely and utterly different from one another. It might be big, small, different colours, moving, still; I see digital organisms moving about my screen, but I also see leaves being blown by the wind. I might even be watching a video of some random pixels moving about, how would I tell the difference?

And who cares anyway?

:doh:

I am not lost in semantics. I am asking whether you see digital organisms as being alive in the same sense that you consider an animal or bacterium to be alive.

What aren't you understanding?

This is either a yes/ no. I'm not asking what your definition of life is. Or whether you think that the universe is a simulation. I am asking whether Dgiital Organisms fit your own view of life.

Xei, I think he was just asking whether you think the digital organisms are alive or not, according to your own definition of what life is.

What do you mean, in the same sense?? There is only one 'sense' in which something can be alive, which is that it fulfils the criteria for life.

And do they fit your criteria?

I don't have a personal set of criteria.

It also depends on what kind of 'digital organism' you're looking at. If for example it constantly changed its own genotype in response to its environment, it wouldn't really be life according to anybody's definition, because it doesn't reproduce, which is fairly crucial.

I wouldn't really consider those things in that program life, because they don't really form cells as there isn't really any external or internal environment, as they're effectively points with no area, nor do they perform homeostasis etcetera.

Okay then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esfx

I don't think 'linear' means what you think it means.

---

...And?

That which is linear is limited, measurable, logical, sequential, predictable, objective, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

So... we just make a computer-brain. Will that make a difference? Is there something in our brain that makes us different?

---

What do you mean? Different from computer processing in general?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by invader_tech

I was under the assumption our universe worked according to the same principles? Can you explain the difference?

---

Sorry, I think you're going to have to re-word this. :oops: What do you mean?

Edit: Oh, do you mean in the sense the process/principles should be reproducible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by invader_tech

I believe sentience implies self awareness, something that no program has reportedly achieved.

---

This is because "self-awareness" is an a priori quality of consciousness, beyond any programming or thinking. Thinking or linear sequences occur within the non-linear context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

What do you mean? Different from computer processing in general?

---

Well yes. I'm no scientist or Electro-technician and I know it's not something you just do. But hey, if we knew how the brain works (roughly), why would making it not be the same as a brain from a living entity? What's stopping it from being sentient?

As long as it obeys all the scientific definitions of life then it is. Life is only a word that is restricted to those principles, the question is only a controversial thing because people like to add there own little requirements for life. Conscious/self awareness/made of carbon are among them, which are not required for life as in its scientific definition.

And if were sitting here making are own definitions for something, then were really just debating what meaning we should assign to this word, which makes no sense because the word is baseless without its meaning in the first place.

I don't consider them alive because they're not reproductive in a physical sense. They're reproductive when looked at from a human's point of view, within the system that they were consciously designed for. It's not real in a material sense, only in a mutual-mental-masturbation sense. Originally the word is used to describe a real (i.e. material) process in the physical world by which matter changes.

If we program a carrot into a computer, is it a carrot? No, it is not. It's just a physical state of a computer, programmed to represent something that could be interpreted as a carrot by a sentient being. That's not a criterion for being a carrot. The actual criterion for being a carrot is whether or not you're a carrot, not whether or not someone thinks you're a carrot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Well yes. I'm no scientist or Electro-technician and I know it's not something you just do. But hey, if we knew how the brain works (roughly), why would making it not be the same as a brain from a living entity? What's stopping it from being sentient?

---

From my understanding, a brain functions within the nonlinear field of consciousness, whereas a program functions within the sequential or linear circuitry of its hardware.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

How can a circuit not be nonlinear?

---

How can it be nonlinear? If you can program it, route it, read it or sequence it, it is linear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

What did you think a logic circuit was? :?

If this, then that, else, this other thing. That isn't linear.

---

A logic circuit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

From my understanding, a brain functions within the nonlinear field of consciousness, whereas a program functions within the sequential or linear circuitry of its hardware.

---

A brain is the hardware. I don't understand. You said the brain functions on consciousness, whereas a program runs on hardware? I don't get it, is a brain conscious or is it the other way around? I always saw it like, Brain=hardware, consciousness="program" if I wanted to make comparisons, not the other way around.
Isn't the brain the circuitry? What do you mean, the brain works on a nonlinear field of consciousness?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

A brain is the hardware. I don't understand. You said the brain functions on consciousness, whereas a program runs on hardware? I don't get it, is a brain conscious or is it the other way around? I always saw it like, Brain=hardware, consciousness="program" if I wanted to make comparisons, not the other way around.
Isn't the brain the circuitry? What do you mean, the brain works on a nonlinear field of consciousness?

---

Ah, sorry. Let me re-explain:

Consciousness>Mind/Thoughts: Nonlinear>Linear

As unrelated (Accurate):

Hardware>Software>Program: All Linear

As related (inaccurate): Hardware>Software/Programs: Nonlinear>Linear

Anyway, it probably still doesn't make much sense.


Let me ask first, have you ever heard of a universal "field", universal mind or quantum "matrix" within which all phenomena arises? Anything even slightly related? Conscioussness is nonlinear, for one reason as it is everywhere present.

They're not living.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Sorry, I think you're going to have to re-word this. :oops: What do you mean?

Edit: Oh, do you mean in the sense the process/principles should be reproducible?

---

Apologies. I can be clearer. If we take your original statement:
"A virtual reality would be limited to the paradigm of causality and logical programming."
You were making it sound as if this were a defining characteristic of the virtual world that set it apart from our real-physical world. I was hoping you could explain further, as I understand "causality" to mean no more than "cause and effect", and "logical programming" to mean no more than "all equations must balance". Since I'm no programmer, can you tell me in greater detail what those two terms mean that makes them specific only to programs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

This is because "self-awareness" is an a priori quality of consciousness, beyond any programming or thinking. Thinking or linear sequences occur within the non-linear context.

---

I agree with the first sentence so far, and don't understand the second one, heh. :whyme:

"Thinking or linear sequences occur within the non-linear context."

How does that work exactly? I'm not arguing this, I just honestly don't know. If the explanation is too lengthy, any recommendations for a good article regarding this in particle will do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Invader Tech

Apologies. I can be clearer. If we take your original statement:
"A virtual reality would be limited to the paradigm of causality and logical programming."
You were making it sound as if this were a defining characteristic of the virtual world that set it apart from our real-physical world. I was hoping you could explain further, as I understand "causality" to mean no more than "cause and effect", and "logical programming" to mean no more than "all equations must balance". Since I'm no programmer, can you tell me in greater detail what those two terms mean that makes them specific only to programs?

---

Causality is a limited paradigm of science and it is fundamentally related to perception of "events". In a greater context of Reality, causality is non-existent. It is comparable to state gravity as the cause of the apple falling, but gravity can be seen in a greater context to provide potentiality for the "falling". The apple wasn't caused to fall, it merely fell under the right conditions; and the conditions were brought about by an infinite amount of others. The main condition is the gravitational force, however that is not the "cause". The main condition is perceived as holding sequential relationship, but this occurs only within perception.

Anyway, this is only slightly related to consciousness, which is nonlinear; all-present and absolute. It provides the capacity for subjective "awareness", which is not definable or rational. This is of higher dimension than the objective, linear existence of three; within which the world identifies.

Programming (software or electrical), although I am unfamiliar with it specifically, functions logically via mathematics. Maths is generally linear; it provides numbers, definitions, measurements, graphs, tables, discrete values, functions, equations and so on. Programming would hold that something needs direct paths and complex patterns of mathematical or symbolic relationship. But how can you program that which is spontaneous? How can you direct something while taking directly into account absolutely everything else that falls within that context? What can decide a chain of events, and within what realm of authority? These are up to the nonlinear field of consciousness, which is not localizable and thusly will encompass all existence, within all life and being. To program or define something like this would be like a small box trying to fill the room it is in, or a person trying to touch the sky upon a long ladder.

Also, a robotic "organism" may not be able to grow and seek survival, because it did not arise "naturally" as an intelligent consequence of evolution, nor does it hold any consciousness; the capacity to experience and feel.

A digital simulation is also limited to the context within which it is provided, rendering many simulations as limited and only holding truth to a certain hypothetical extent, and not to a greater, realistic extent. (Edit: I guess I'm emphasizing the importance of quantum reality, over the reality of classical physics, which is more limited and on different scale of observation/phenomena).

What comes to mind in exception is a "quantum computer", but I doubt its possible existence, and that a human intelligence is capable of "programming" it. Also, a robot (and a human) would be totally different than a human with robotic or electrically compatible parts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Invader Tech

I agree with the first sentence so far, and don't understand the second one, heh. :whyme:

"Thinking or linear sequences occur within the non-linear context."

How does that work exactly? I'm not arguing this, I just honestly don't know. If the explanation is too lengthy, any recommendations for a good article regarding this in particle will do.

---

Coupled with my response above, here is an image I have once shown already:

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/2517/existencezb2.jpg

I hope this is overall helpful.

So it basically comes down to your own personal world-view. Again, there is no difference between a neural network and a technological substitute, even if not possible yet.

You just believe in some astral souls which chose humans to make godly by giving them consciousness. I believe the consciousness comes from brain activity. That's why I see AI as very plausible and you impossible. And a quantum computer has already been made.

God damnit DuB this is why I posted this thread in the Science board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

You just believe in some astral souls which chose humans to make godly by giving them consciousness.

---

Who, me? Where have I said this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

I believe the consciousness comes from brain activity. That's why I see AI as very plausible and you impossible. And a quantum computer has already been made.

---

A quantum computer, where? What does it do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Who, me? Where have I said this?

---

Nowhere, I'm just putting words in your mouth.

I'm just saying that you decided that the brain works in some field of consciousness. I'm saying that the brain works as a network of neurons and if copied you could make an artificial brain. There is nothing magical about the brain so there should be nothing magical about consciousness in a computer. This last sentence is the statement I'd like you to address. I'm sorry if you have before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

A quantum computer, where? What does it do?

---

It works with qbits instead of bits. A bit is a 1 or a 0, a qubit is a 1, 0 or both. Don't ask me anything more, because I wouldn't know.

wikipedia:Quantum computing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Nowhere, I'm just putting words in your mouth.

---

Thanks! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

I'm just saying that you decided that the brain works in some field of consciousness. I'm saying that the brain works as a network of neurons and if copied you could make an artificial brain.

---

Sure, but what I'm saying is, that is a limitation based upon appearances. Neurons are but one part of the intelligence. They "manifest" out of the field of consciousness, not the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

There is nothing magical about the brain so there should be nothing magical about consciousness in a computer. This last sentence is the statement I'd like you to address. I'm sorry if you have before.

---

The last sentence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

It works with qbits instead of bits. A bit is a 1 or a 0, a qubit is a 1, 0 or both. Don't ask me anything more, because I wouldn't know.

wikipedia:Quantum computing

---

Ok, cheers. I'll look into this.

Well I say that a consciousness manifests out of the brain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Well I say that a consciousness manifests out of the brain.

---

Why? Does life manifest out of the brain? It is a really tricky topic. I'd prefer to not type out an essay on it. :D However, the main points are pretty clear anyway.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Ok, I can understand this common view. But:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

To the other question - I guess life manifests out of complex chemical reactions.

---

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

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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".

Quote:

---

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 :P

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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".

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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? :D

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy

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.

---

I understand this, but there are still limitations. This is because causality really only exists in perception. What caused the Universe, and/or what caused the big bang? I hope you see that causality does not encompass all possibilities. It only exists within an arbitrary selection of perception (using imaginary start/stop points), which is sometimes blind to the prevailing conditions. The conditions are neither causes nor effects; this can be related to what is called "quantum potentiality".

Going back to what I said, consciousness is not within the confines of the physical dimensions, so physical models can't really be used as an argument against it. Because the prevailing patterns of consciousness are of non-linear complexity, they cannot be defined or logically comprehended, therefore cannot be programmed in a sort of sequence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

I understand this, but there are still limitations. This is because causality really only exists in perception. What caused the Universe, and/or what caused the big bang? I hope you see that causality does not encompass all possibilities. It only exists within an arbitrary selection of perception (using imaginary start/stop points), which is sometimes blind to the prevailing conditions. The conditions are neither causes nor effects; this can be related to what is called "quantum potentiality".

Going back to what I said, consciousness is not within the confines of the physical dimensions, so physical models can't really be used as an argument against it. Because the prevailing patterns of consciousness are of non-linear complexity, they cannot be defined or logically comprehended, therefore cannot be programmed in a sort of sequence.

---

Alright, I understand more where you are coming from now. I do agree with you up to a point. I think the only difference between our points of view is that I do believe that conciousness is within the confines of the physical dimensions. I see conciousness as coming out of the immense complexity of the neural network. The best way to sum up my view is to re-quote you, with my own addition in bold.

Quote:

---

Because the prevailing patterns of consciousness are of non-linear complexity, they cannot be defined or logically comprehended, therefore cannot be programmed in a sort of sequence, yet

---

To address the original question, I do think eventually we will be able to "program" a real consciousness. The idea of "simple programs" is what leads me to believe we will in fact be able to create something complex enough to have free will. If we do, I will most certainly consider it to be living.

I've linked this a couple of times in other threads, but I guess it can't hurt to link it again. It explains what a simple program is.

Simple programs

Those who think AI is possible are misunderstanding conciousness itself. The idea that we can create AI comes from our delusional materialist sense of 'I am the sum of my parts'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

Those who think AI is possible are misunderstanding conciousness itself. The idea that we can create AI comes from our delusional materialist sense of 'I am the sum of my parts'.

---

I would say that you are misunderstanding consciousness itself by saying it is anything more than the sum of its parts (the neural network). Unfortunately, the question will never be answered in favor of your argument. Either AI will be created, in which case you will have been wrong, or it won't be, in which case people will keep saying that we just can't make it yet. I personally think it will be created. I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy

To address the original question, I do think eventually we will be able to "program" a real consciousness. The idea of "simple programs" is what leads me to believe we will in fact be able to create something complex enough to have free will. If we do, I will most certainly consider it to be living.

I've linked this a couple of times in other threads, but I guess it can't hurt to link it again. It explains what a simple program is.

Simple programs

---

There is still limitation because it is a matter of paradigm. From my understanding, you cannot process what has no actual process, and so one cannot simplify what is already totally simple.

Otherwise, how can you program the infinite? Is the notion of free-will within causality? Because neither of these are within objectivity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

Those who think AI is possible are misunderstanding conciousness itself. The idea that we can create AI comes from our delusional materialist sense of 'I am the sum of my parts'.

---

Since when have unsubstantiated beliefs been more rational than those based on scientific observation. Instead of criticizing something by saying it's delusional, you should tell us why the opposite is true. Obviously something non-delusional like god particles looking for humans to give them consciousness, making them an exception to everything else in the universe. Why should humans be an exception?

I personally think that we are more than our chemical configuration. That's all I can say in my defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

I personally think that we are more than our chemical configuration. That's all I can say in my defense.

---

Obviously we are. ;)

Otherwise we have simply made a statement based off an appearance.


"Buildings have walls, man builds them" Well, so what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Obviously we are. ;)

Otherwise we have simply made a statement based off an appearance.


"Buildings have walls, man builds them" Well, so what?

---

Well, so what, so what? Nobody said that an observation has to satisfy yours or anybody else's cognitive needs. A house has walls... If you are compelled to say "so what" then that can only be your problem. And besides, saying that we are more than chemical configurations is also a statement based off an appearance. Why isn't this a "So what?" statement as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Obviously we are. ;)

Otherwise we have simply made a statement based off an appearance.


"Buildings have walls, man builds them" Well, so what?

---

Sitting back and saying "so what?" is such a boring way to live life. Why just believe something is one way when you could actually go and try to figure out what it is?

Quote:

---

I personally think that we are more than our chemical configuration. That's all I can say in my defense.

---

Except you've just used your opinionated, unsubstantiated beliefs to criticise people who believe there is nothing extra to consciousness as "deluded", to declare AI as "impossible", as well as arrogantly claim you understand consciousness (since you claim others misunderstand it).

You can't defend that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Well, so what, so what? Nobody said that an observation has to satisfy yours or anybody else's cognitive needs. A house has walls... If you are compelled to say "so what" then that can only be your problem. And besides, saying that we are more than chemical configurations is also a statement based off an appearance. Why isn't this a "So what?" statement as well?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy

Sitting back and saying "so what?" is such a boring way to live life. Why just believe something is one way when you could actually go and try to figure out what it is?

---

Ok let me make a better, clearer analogy.

Person A - Chairs are meaningless. Because they are merely made of wood.

Person B - Made of wood? In most situations yes, but what's your point? "So what" if they are merely made of wood?

The same thing goes for human beings, and in fact, all existence. It is all "energy", "chemicals", etc. So what? True meaning does not become destroyed from this appearance, that would be a distraction. This does not reduce meaning unless the context for meaning is strictly materialistic, and thus, narrow to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Except you've just used your opinionated, unsubstantiated beliefs to criticise people who believe there is nothing extra to consciousness as "deluded", to declare AI as "impossible", as well as arrogantly claim you understand consciousness (since you claim others misunderstand it).

You can't defend that.

---

There is also arrogance in the human intellect itself, perhaps that thinks it can possibly program a human being through "AI" to great extents. I think it is naive. AI robots will never have consciousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

There is also arrogance in the human intellect itself, perhaps that thinks it can possibly program a human being through "AI" to great extents. I think it is naive.

---

How is it arrogant or naive to think that it could be possible to one day understand something? It would only be arrogant or naive to say for a fact that it will or will not ever happen. In your case, you are saying we can not ever under any circumstances understand or duplicate the human consciousness. That says to me that you feel like you know the secret to consciousness, and that the secret is unknowable. In actuality, no one knows, so you can't say someone is naive for attempting to figure it out. You are the naive one for deciding its impossible without any real reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy

How is it arrogant or naive to think that it could be possible to one day understand something? It would only be arrogant or naive to say for a fact that it will or will not ever happen. In your case, you are saying we can not ever under any circumstances understand or duplicate the human consciousness. That says to me that you feel like you know the secret to consciousness, and that the secret is unknowable. In actuality, no one knows, so you can't say someone is naive for attempting to figure it out. You are the naive one for deciding its impossible without any real reason.

---

I have provided reasons, actually. It comes from recognition of the actual meanings/contexts involved. Just because your television can produce the illusory color of white with three darker colors, doesn't mean you can re-produce white with those three colors in the medium of paint.

Similarly, we cannot program an illogical, natural, organic being with some limited and self-created system of logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

I have provided reasons, actually. It comes from recognition of the actual meanings/contexts involved. Just because your television can produce the illusory color of white with three darker colors, doesn't mean you can re-produce white with those three colors in the medium of paint.

Similarly, we cannot program an illogical, natural, organic being with some limited and self-created system of logic.

---

First of all, that is a pretty terrible analogy. Of course mixing paint won't have the same effect as mixing wavelengths of light. In TV, if you want a color the TV emits that color. It emits red if you want red, it emits blue if you want blue, and if you want white it emits every color together. Every wavelength of light combined creates white. In paint, if you want a color, the paint absorbs every color except the one you want. If you want red, your paint absorbs everything but red and reflects red. If you want blue, it absorbs everything but blue and reflects blue. If you mix together every color of paint, your paint is then absorbing every color and you won't have anything but black. So not only are you comparing apples to oranges, I don't even see how that has anything to do with the argument.

Second, you don't see how it is possible to create consciousness, therefore you are saying definitively that it is impossible. That is extremely closed minded. People 10,000 years ago didn't have access to enough information to even fathom how it could be possible to create something like the internet. If you tried to tell them what an electron was they would probably laugh and walk away. It seemed reasonable to them because how could something like that exist? However, you are just perpetuating that instead of learning from their mistakes. Just because you don't see how it could be possible doesn't mean it never will be. By saying, without a doubt, that something can never possibly happen you are saying that you know everything about the universe, and within this universe consciousness can only (for some reason) be grown from a mothers womb. To me, it seems extremely arrogant for you to think you know everything about this universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy

First of all, that is a pretty terrible analogy. Of course mixing paint won't have the same effect as mixing wavelengths of light. In TV, if you want a color the TV emits that color. It emits red if you want red, it emits blue if you want blue, and if you want white it emits every color together. Every wavelength of light combined creates white. In paint, if you want a color, the paint absorbs every color except the one you want. If you want red, your paint absorbs everything but red and reflects red. If you want blue, it absorbs everything but blue and reflects blue. If you mix together every color of paint, your paint is then absorbing every color and you won't have anything but black. So not only are you comparing apples to oranges, I don't even see how that has anything to do with the argument.

---

You don't need to explain this. My point was that while there are two listed ways that colors are possible, they are not representing each other because they are totally different contexts of creating color. Your conclusion simply reaffirmed this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy

Second, you don't see how it is possible to create consciousness, therefore you are saying definitively that it is impossible. That is extremely closed minded. People 10,000 years ago didn't have access to enough information to even fathom how it could be possible to create something like the internet. If you tried to tell them what an electron was they would probably laugh and walk away. It seemed reasonable to them because how could something like that exist? However, you are just perpetuating that instead of learning from their mistakes. Just because you don't see how it could be possible doesn't mean it never will be. By saying, without a doubt, that something can never possibly happen you are saying that you know everything about the universe, and within this universe consciousness can only (for some reason) be grown from a mothers womb. To me, it seems extremely arrogant for you to think you know everything about this universe.

---

Like I have said, it is a matter of paradigm and recognition thereof. Is it arrogant that someone says that the sky can never fall?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

You don't need to explain this. My point was that while there are two listed ways that colors are possible, they are not representing each other because they are totally different contexts of creating color. Your conclusion simply reaffirmed this.



Like I have said, it is a matter of paradigm and recognition thereof. Is it arrogant that someone says that the sky can never fall?

---

Well you've confused me with your colors explanation, because I have no idea what you meant by it.

As for our argument, I agree that we view the world through different paradigms. I am trying to say it is naive to say something will never happen. It is only ever reasonable to say something will probably never happen. I would think its naive to say the sky will never fall. Since you definitely do not know everything, you can't be sure there is no scenario where the sky will fall. If you say it never will, then you naively think you know everything (whether you consciously think you do or not).

Quote:

---

Similarly, we cannot program an illogical, natural, organic being with some limited and self-created system of logic.

---

Why not? If you learn about the brain, you'd understand that nerve impulses are essentially the 0s and 1s of binary. The way we perceive stimuli is to do with the rate of these pulses. The analogue nature of our senses comes from the analogue nature of the chemical reactions that drive them.

Furthermore, you assume (with nothing to back it up) that A) you would have to program the being itself instead of it being an emergent property of the system and B) that everything must be logical because the input must adhere to computer logic.

There is no reason to think that our minds are not the result of logical consistent laws of physics, just that it is a property that emerges from the very complex human nervous system. Obviously we do not fully understand the process, at least for the moment.

In short, you're doing the same and simply being opinionated but claiming it to be fact, but you do at least have decency to explain your thoughts on the matter.

Quote:

---

There is also arrogance in the human intellect itself, perhaps that thinks it can possibly program a human being through "AI" to great extents. I think it is naive. AI robots will never have consciousness.

---

How is it arrogant to think "this may be possible at some point in the future as we continue to increase our knowledge"? Similarly to "one day we might completely cure cancer" or "one day we might be able to halt ageing".

On the contrary, it is arrogant of you to assert so boldly that "AI will never have consciousness". As I said above, whilst you have at least given your reasoning, the reasoning itself stands on many assumptions that are in no way definitely proven (or even remotely near to it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photolysis

How is it arrogant to think "this may be possible at some point in the future as we continue to increase our knowledge"? Similarly to "one day we might completely cure cancer" or "one day we might be able to halt ageing".

On the contrary, it is arrogant of you to assert so boldly that "AI will never have consciousness". As I said above, whilst you have at least given your reasoning, the reasoning itself stands on many assumptions that are in no way definitely proven (or even remotely near to it).

---

I completely agree with you, but I get the feeling you skipped over the last few posts in this thread. Really and I were just arguing those points.

As for your explanation of how the brain works with nerve pulses, I also agree with you, but really has already made it clear he believes there is "something" special about the brain, and its just the way he views things so there isn't much point in debating it with him. I don't mean to detract from the points you made, but you're pretty much beating a dead horse at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy

Well you've confused me with your colors explanation, because I have no idea what you meant by it.

As for our argument, I agree that we view the world through different paradigms. I am trying to say it is naive to say something will never happen. It is only ever reasonable to say something will probably never happen. I would think its naive to say the sky will never fall. Since you definitely do not know everything, you can't be sure there is no scenario where the sky will fall. If you say it never will, then you naively think you know everything (whether you consciously think you do or not).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photolysis

How is it arrogant to think "this may be possible at some point in the future as we continue to increase our knowledge"? Similarly to "one day we might completely cure cancer" or "one day we might be able to halt ageing".

---

I'm quite surprised that neither of you have understood my analogies. I am saying that the basic flaw or limitation here is that of perception, in that the context or paradigm of a particular issue is not recognised. For example, it is not naive to think that the sky will never fall, because otherwise there would be the assumption that it is an actual possibility (the sky is limitless). You cannot mix red, blue and green paint and expect white (as with television pixels) because it is a different context to form colors.

Now, why should a program be able to form consciousness? I think it is flawed from the beginning: (assuming that) consciousness is a product of neuronal activity, therefore this program/binary must produce consciousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Why not? If you learn about the brain, you'd understand that nerve impulses are essentially the 0s and 1s of binary. The way we perceive stimuli is to do with the rate of these pulses. The analogue nature of our senses comes from the analogue nature of the chemical reactions that drive them.

---

So you may be able to emulate a nerve response like this, but that doesn't mean that you can create conscious beings with a binary system. Nervous systems may be linear in this sense, but consciousness itself is non-linear and is rooted in evolution and living. In this way it is an interconnected source of life, and to reproduce but a small figment of it would merely mirror what we can perceive of it, and nothing more.

Programming it would also fall within the presumption of causality, but unfortunately nothing can be "programmed", since programs, like causal relationships, have no actual existence in consciousness. There may be so-called "programs" of the mind and belief systems, but they are not consciousness either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Furthermore, you assume (with nothing to back it up) that A) you would have to program the being itself instead of it being an emergent property of the system and B) that everything must be logical because the input must adhere to computer logic.

---

Rather, I disagree that consciousness is an emergent property, and that it is the other way around: That neuronal and genetic activity are functions and emergent expressions of consciousness - the context for our very awareness and life-form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Rather, I disagree that consciousness is an emergent property, and that it is the other way around: That neuronal and genetic activity are functions and emergent expressions of consciousness - the context for our very awareness and life-form.

---

Well there you go. Didn't you say here you believe that consciousness is independent of the brain? How can you prove or disprove it and why is this still being discussed. I might as well say something completely x and argue it indefinitely. How can we "do science" if we make things up. Do you have anything at all to disprove the possible existence of AI, beside your personal beliefs? I have the brain as my proof of the possibility of AI, where is yours?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Well there you go. Didn't you say here you believe that consciousness is independent of the brain? How can you prove or disprove it and why is this still being discussed. I might as well say something completely x and argue it indefinitely. How can we "do science" if we make things up.

---

Yes I have repeated myself. Consciousness is not independent from the brain as such, but it is both within it and beyond it. It is not subject to the brain. E.g. If we "get" brain damage, consciousness is still there as the essence of life, until death. It is not our state of mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Do you have anything at all to disprove the possible existence of AI, beside your personal beliefs? I have the brain as my proof of the possibility of AI, where is yours?

---

Well, then I have consciousness as my proof. :D Just kidding.

I am not disproving AI. I am saying that intrinsically as a human concept, it is limited to perception and will not be able to form consciousness because of its paradigm or system. It will only be able to act out within the confines of programming and the assumption of causality. This obviously has nothing to do with putting actual microchips in someones brain (that is a different story), but building a "human-smart" conscious robot.

Most of my information is gathered from the well renowned spiritual teacher, Dr. David Hawkins, who has a great clinical/psychiatric background and has studied the nature of consciousness for many years. Also, see Henry Stapp for the quantum (mechanical) explanations for the related kinesiologic muscle responses as subtle functions of consciousness. The main area of interest here is that consciousness intrinsically has prior "attractor patterns" (non-linear dynamics) which dominates a persons way of life, including spiritual awareness and behavioral proclivities, beliefs systems, choices, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Except you've just used your opinionated, unsubstantiated beliefs to criticise people who believe there is nothing extra to consciousness as "deluded", to declare AI as "impossible", as well as arrogantly claim you understand consciousness (since you claim others misunderstand it).

You can't defend that.

---

At least let me try...Going back to what I said...

"Those who think AI is possible are misunderstanding conciousness itself. The idea that we can create AI comes from our delusional materialist sense of 'I am the sum of my parts'."

I am merely saying that we are not the sum of our parts. Perhaps a little too strongly for some of the sensitive readers here. To think we can build robots complex enough to attain consciousness at our level and even surpass us is ludicrous. I mean, at best we create a robot that can continually upgrade itself and store more and more information on it's database. But just because the robot appears to be alive and conscious doesn't mean a god damn thing. You can go online and talk to Alan and even make your own HAL bot. If you spent enough time programming it's responses I'm sure that it would seem rather intelligent, and even reflective at times. Sure you can ask it questions and it will respond, but that is not consciousness. It is merely selecting a suitable response. And I think (yes i'm just using my brain, sorry?) that this is the best we can do, and I think it will be done on a massive scale in the future which will lead people to believe that these robots are intelligent creatures capable of adapting to situations (social, physical, etc). Which they will to a certain extent like an animal. It's just like when a bird gets stuck in an oil spill, it can't do anything in that situation, it needs a more sophisticated being such as ourselves to heal it. We will always be upgrading and improving our creations but not to this extent.

The ability for humans to turn 'inward' and reflect upon their actions, words, and thoughts is intrinsically human. Robots will only have the capability to respond to what is already 'out there' and what has already happened. Just like an animal.

At best we will create a self-upgrading pseudo-consciousness but never will we create a conscious being aside from having a child.

Let's say I get a really high-resolution scanner like and MRI and make a set of diagrams showing EXACTLY what a human brain looks like, down to the individual molecules. Now I have a lot of carbon and other molecules. I'm putting these molecules in the right order to make an exactly perfect copy of the brain I mapped. You're saying this perfect copy would not be conscious if it had some way of communicating?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

At least let me try...Going back to what I said...

"Those who think AI is possible are misunderstanding conciousness itself. The idea that we can create AI comes from our delusional materialist sense of 'I am the sum of my parts'."

I am merely saying that we are not the sum of our parts. Perhaps a little too strongly for some of the sensitive readers here. To think we can build robots complex enough to attain consciousness at our level and even surpass us is ludicrous. I mean, at best we create a robot that can continually upgrade itself and store more and more information on it's database. But just because the robot appears to be alive and conscious doesn't mean a god damn thing. You can go online and talk to Alan and even make your own HAL bot. If you spent enough time programming it's responses I'm sure that it would seem rather intelligent, and even reflective at times. Sure you can ask it questions and it will respond, but that is not consciousness. It is merely selecting a suitable response. And I think (yes i'm just using my brain, sorry?) that this is the best we can do, and I think it will be done on a massive scale in the future which will lead people to believe that these robots are intelligent creatures capable of adapting to situations (social, physical, etc). Which they will to a certain extent like an animal. It's just like when a bird gets stuck in an oil spill, it can't do anything in that situation, it needs a more sophisticated being such as ourselves to heal it. We will always be upgrading and improving our creations but not to this extent.

The ability for humans to turn 'inward' and reflect upon their actions, words, and thoughts is intrinsically human. Robots will only have the capability to respond to what is already 'out there' and what has already happened. Just like an animal.

At best we will create a self-upgrading pseudo-consciousness but never will we create a conscious being aside from having a child.

---

I agree with you and I like the way you have explained this. It is probably more understandable than my own explanations; you've basically outlined the essentials of my response in a more casual way. ;) The only other thing I'd like to say is, we humans are animals. Animals are conscious beings too, just less conscious in most cases.

So really and grasshoppa, you are both saying that if you were to be given an AI robot that was fully conscious, you would consider it to be just imitating consciousness and not actually conscious? If so, then there is no real reason in debating anymore because if an actual AI robot won't convince you, then nothing will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy

So really and grasshoppa, you are both saying that if you were to be given an AI robot that was fully conscious, you would consider it to be just imitating consciousness and not actually conscious? If so, then there is no real reason in debating anymore because if an actual AI robot won't convince you, then nothing will.

---

That's not really my point, I haven't said this. My point is that rather that, although we can program a robot to respond certain stimuli, we are doing it according to perception and defined "causes" (or conditions), which is not always necessary for an imposed action or event. Conscious beings do not respond logically in all situations, because they inherit an inner awareness that directs the mind/reasoning and capacity to grow from certain experiences as it chooses, and it is not dependent on external conditions (despite some belief systems), nor in-built "programs" that are hardwired. The choices and intelligence are determined by a greater, invisible field of consciousness, which forms a "reality tunnel" of experiential data with which the being interacts with and perceives as reality.

Whether we can look at a robot and judge whether it is conscious or not is really beside the point, and even within such a judgment it would be within the limitation of perception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

I am merely saying that we are not the sum of our parts. Perhaps a little too strongly for some of the sensitive readers here. To think we can build robots complex enough to attain consciousness at our level and even surpass us is ludicrous. I mean, at best we create a robot that can continually upgrade itself and store more and more information on it's database. But just because the robot appears to be alive and conscious doesn't mean a god damn thing.

---

Why is it ludicrous? Because you can't believe it?
Just because you appear to be alive and conscious doesn't mean a god damn thing. Do you know why I think you are? Because you are the sum of your parts as am I.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

You can go online and talk to Alan and even make your own HAL bot. If you spent enough time programming it's responses I'm sure that it would seem rather intelligent, and even reflective at times. Sure you can ask it questions and it will respond, but that is not consciousness. It is merely selecting a suitable response.

---

Well this is not something we are discussing here. We were discussing about actual AI. As in human brain like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

And I think (yes i'm just using my brain, sorry?) that this is the best we can do, and I think it will be done on a massive scale in the future which will lead people to believe that these robots are intelligent creatures capable of adapting to situations (social, physical, etc). Which they will to a certain extent like an animal. It's just like when a bird gets stuck in an oil spill, it can't do anything in that situation, it needs a more sophisticated being such as ourselves to heal it. We will always be upgrading and improving our creations but not to this extent. The ability for humans to turn 'inward' and reflect upon their actions, words, and thoughts is intrinsically human. Robots will only have the capability to respond to what is already 'out there' and what has already happened. Just like an animal.

---

(So what if you are using your brain, so are the Christians and they believe in some crazy stuff, sorry?) Again, we weren't discussing what you think the future will be like. We are discussing the hypothetical possibility of actual AI, again actual as in human like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

At best we will create a self-upgrading pseudo-consciousness but never will we create a conscious being aside from having a child.

---

Well, all I can say is that I'm glad that you know everything.

I'm just speculating. I don't know a god damn thing, I am the grasshoppa. This is a philosophy forum, speculation and the imagination are allowed. When you make an agruement you are supposed to make your points strong. And the more the writer seems to believe in his own shit, the more likely his points will get across.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

At least let me try...Going back to what I said...

"Those who think AI is possible are misunderstanding conciousness itself. The idea that we can create AI comes from our delusional materialist sense of 'I am the sum of my parts'."

I am merely saying that we are not the sum of our parts. Perhaps a little too strongly for some of the sensitive readers here. To think we can build robots complex enough to attain consciousness at our level and even surpass us is ludicrous. I mean, at best we create a robot that can continually upgrade itself and store more and more information on it's database. But just because the robot appears to be alive and conscious doesn't mean a god damn thing. You can go online and talk to Alan and even make your own HAL bot. If you spent enough time programming it's responses I'm sure that it would seem rather intelligent, and even reflective at times. Sure you can ask it questions and it will respond, but that is not consciousness. It is merely selecting a suitable response. And I think (yes i'm just using my brain, sorry?) that this is the best we can do, and I think it will be done on a massive scale in the future which will lead people to believe that these robots are intelligent creatures capable of adapting to situations (social, physical, etc). Which they will to a certain extent like an animal. It's just like when a bird gets stuck in an oil spill, it can't do anything in that situation, it needs a more sophisticated being such as ourselves to heal it. We will always be upgrading and improving our creations but not to this extent.

The ability for humans to turn 'inward' and reflect upon their actions, words, and thoughts is intrinsically human. Robots will only have the capability to respond to what is already 'out there' and what has already happened. Just like an animal.

---

How is that any different from the way your mind works?

You are presented stimuli and your brain chooses the appropriate way to react. Nerual Nets do exactly this by associating different things together. The difference is Neural Nets are limited by Memory and Sensory perception-- They can only be communicated with through textual interface, usually. But that's not to say that it is impossible to give them other means of perception-- I.e. A microphone to listen to, or a camera to look through.

Humans are animals, so your last three sentences make absolutely no sense...

My answer to the original question is yes, I do believe that digital organisms have entered the realm of what I consider to be living, albeit very simplistic.

I do believe that we are the sum of our parts. For example, there was a video (which I cant find right now) that demonstrated when the pathway between the facial recognition part of the brain and the reward system in the brain (to put it simple terms) is severed the person will not be able to visually recognize people for who they are. They can still recognize faces, but for example, if their mother comes in their room, although the woman in the room looks and sounds and acts like their mother they will claim with no uncertainty that their mother is an impostor of their mother. In other words, the neurons which the brain expects to fire when it recognizes the face of its mother do not, hence the brain refuses to believe that this person is their mother. When a part is removed there is no safety system in our head saying "oh crap, thats my mom but the sensory input does not say reaffirm this so I need to fix this", no, instead it continues on as if there was no sensory input and makes up excuses as to why the image of this person does not provoke the right input i.e. They are an impostor.

The point I am trying to make with this is that we are able to emulate parts of the brain, such as facial recognition, voice recognition etc but we are still lacking the parts which tie these together to make something that falls under the category of being alive. Even the smallest disruption in the brain can cause adverse effects on the other working systems which is why computers are not capable yet of surpassing our functionality, we simply don't know how to connect the parts yet to make a working system, but we have some of the parts.


The reason AI bots such as the chat bots grasshoppa mentioned seemed stupid is because that is literally how they were programmed to be. Being a programmer myself I would look at the problem and say there are only so many things someone can say, and there are only so many responses so we will start building a system that reacts based on certain criteria because that is the fastest way. But that is not to say that computers cannot comprehend conversation as we do, it just takes them a long time to learn it just as we do. Hell, my mind is 20 years in the making and I am still pretty ignorant by many standards. It took me 4 years of life before I could read, and that is when I already had the right systems (eyes, brain) to be able to learn that. However computers are not at that point yet, they don't have all the necessary systems for flawless learning yet, but when they do, they will be able to be programmed in such a way where they can know nothing, but be able to learn from its inputs as time goes on. So in the mean time we make crude representations of these inputs to which the lacking computer can make some sort of judgment upon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

"To think we can build robots complex enough to attain consciousness at our level and even surpass us is ludicrous. I mean, at best we create a robot that can continually upgrade itself and store more and more information on it's database."

---

Couldnt you say the same thing about humans? I mean, at be we create a baby that can continually grow and store more and more information in its brain.

I highly suggest you view this short clip from a documentary to see just how far we have come. There are some unrelated topics discussed but many are discussing the topic of this thread such as the development of a chip which replaces parts of a brain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZShORepzB-g

I think this discussion could be summed up by the following statement taken from that documentary:

"At first we said if a computer could play chess then it would think like us, and then we got a computer to play chess and we said thats not really thinking. And the answer is we don't really know what thinking is. I would argue right now that machines do a pretty good job at thinking. They don't do as good a job at creating although we don't really know what creating is. And they don't do a very good job at having a soul, but we don't really know what a soul is. But when we can define it, they do a pretty good job at doing it."


Oh by the way A, T, G, C. Those are the distinct "symbols" which make up our DNA which is the code to how our bodies are formed. 0, 1. Those are the distinct symbols which make up every computer program which is how the program knows what to do. So we humans only have 2 more symbols that dictate how things are supposed to be arranged, vast difference eh?

We are simply not at the point and time for AI to be a replica of ourselves, but we are not far away.

Notice how digitial organisms that are considered "living" by some have a creator. I still do not define them as living myself, and maybe I could change my mind, but it is as Xei says, just semantics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

And who cares anyway?

---

yes........

Grasshoppa, I completely disagree with you.

Right now in Switzerland they have simulated a neocortical column. It's just a matter of money and time (10 years) before they can scale it up to the size of the human brain.

If you disagree that that would be conscious then I ask you; what's inherently conscious about carbon and hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen etc. which constitutes the human brain?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Right now in Switzerland they have simulated a neocortical column. It's just a matter of money and time (10 years) before they can scale it up to the size of the human brain.

If you disagree that that would be conscious then I ask you; what's inherently conscious about carbon and hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen etc. which constitutes the human brain?

---

I don't really know what that means. What do you mean "simulate"?

On a supercomputer.

Just because a robot says 'hello' doesn't mean that robot has any comprehension of what that word means. Let alone any comprehension of 'words'. This is the problem when discussing whether or not AI is conscious. How do we know if its conscious of that which we have programed it to do?

Im not saying AI can never be conscious. But what I do believe is we need to be careful placing a high level of consciousness onto something reacting exactly as we design it to react.

All living things exhibit self-awareness to an extent. All living things exhibit free will to an extent. Even if its just choosing to move left or right.

You can argue that a robot making decisions based on its program is like an animal making decisions based on instinct, or design. And I would agree, DNA is very much a program. The program of programs!

We have to however becareful measuring the true level of consciousness that AI exhibits when we start giving it 'intelligent' things to say and do. Because although the AI might have shown the 'free will' to choose a verbal respond, this does not mean that said AI has any comprehension of language. It's just choosing the most logical noise to make given its design.

This is the difference between living things and AI. The AI will perform actions without any reason or rhyme. Without any meaning to why it did those actions other than to satisfy our ego.

You can argue that performing a mindless action is like an animal doing something out of instinct. But this is NOT like instinct. Instinct is a DRIVE given a set of reactions defined by DNA. You can easily program AI to STOP doing something. And the AI won't rebel, complain or go into withdrawal symptoms. It complies to the command because it has no drive in the first place to do said command.

The same is not true for living things. We do have an instinctual drive engrained in our being on so many levels, most life forms literally have to be killed to distinguish their drive. The instinctual drive is to live, or to ensure that life itself continues. Leading all the way back to the first life forms, who copied themselves to ensure that 'themselves' continue.

I do not believe that DNA gave life the drive to continue living. I believe it is the other way around. DNA is the creation of life desiring to continue living. A way to carry on life indefinitely, and the plan has yet to fail.

I believe, given what I'v seen so far, that if AI is conscious, it's below worm level.

What will you say when the AI decides to kill us all on it's own free will? What I'm saying is that you speak as if there was a clear definition or a singular example of what AI specifically is. But there is no such thing. As far as anyone is concerned AI can be programmed to become like living things or humans. It's program is the same as instinct and there is no reason to differentiate between a manufactured one and the one we have. It's the starting point of a very similar thread in the science forum, recreating the human brain. How much nonhuman can a human brain be once it's perfected?

You're putting too many limitations on what AI can or can't be, jurora.

If the AI in question was simply an emulation of a neural network, then it would behave in exactly the same way as an animal, instinct and all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

On a supercomputer.

---

Ah ok.


Juroara, I see what you're saying and pretty much agree. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

If the AI in question was simply an emulation of a neural network, then it would behave in exactly the same way as an animal, instinct and all.

---

You're not seeing the limitation. You can simulate or re-create the same two scenarios, but something very important is missing. That can be called consciousness, or the simple subjective reality. Although you might be able to program or simulate something, it is not the same in reality. What occurs in reality is a consequence of an infinite amount of invisible conditions; what occurs in the simulation is a reproduction of an interpretation of the results. Furthermore, this occurs within the limitations of our own definitions, and the definitions of our own limitations. :D

Look at this below, it simplifies the problem. Internal condition is the consciousness and intelligence of the entity. The result is the observed external condition - the actions of the entity.

Internal condition > Result / External Condition

Reality:
"I want to walk" intention - Consciousness (Nerve impulses, etc.) > Entity is seen to walk

Simulation/Mirror:
Neurons firing one after the other etc. > Entity is seen to walk


Another example: Press a button on your keyboard. There, that was simple. That can be simulated and programed. But guess what - how the hell can you program your consciousness - the context as the witness? You can't, because consciousness is nonlinear. You cannot see it or represent it in a bunch of symbols or numbers.

Err... It would simulate the most basic functions of the brain. Something tells me you have no idea how evolutionary or neural net programming works-- You go for low-level design and everything else is 'emergent'-- An indirect cause of the base code. It's much easier to write code that writes code than write code. This simulation does just that-- it simulates the low-level functions and then all these other 'scenarios' are solved using a ton of smaller parts within the simulation. There is absolutely no limit to the complexity of these emergent properties except for disk space and processing power.

Consciousness is an emergent property of your brain, not an inherent one. You don't have any true sense of 'self' (You know, consiousness) until your brain is almost 5 years old and you have been recieving all of the stimulus that a normal child does.

@Juroara: What makes you say that the brain wouldn't have an understanding of what it does after some time? What makes you say you understand what you do, and that everything you think and do isn't just a knee-jerk reaction to external stimulus based on your memory and current state of mind?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Consciousness is an emergent property of your brain, not an inherent one. You don't have any true sense of 'self' (You know, consiousness) until your brain is almost 5 years old and you have been recieving all of the stimulus that a normal child does.

---

What do you mean you don't have any "true sense of self" until your brain is almost five years old? :lol:

That you aren't conscious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

That you aren't conscious.

---

You have an explanation!? :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

That you aren't conscious.

---

What are you talking about Roxxor? Kids under five have things that they like, things that they dislike, they ask why, they interact/change the enviroment around them, they study things, they test boundaries and they think and rationalize. Under what criteria/system are they not self aware?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Do you consider digital organisms, as in the ones in programs like Evolve 4.0, to be living?

Why/ Why not?

I, personally consider them to be living things because they evolve, have genetic code, reproduce, eat, and are made of cells.

I've been playing with Evolve 4 for a while now, and I've seen some pretty amazing things with the little programs that evolve out of some of the simulations I've run. Such as an organism that avoided barriers by several cells, or an organism that actively searched for spores to fertilize.

---

Yes but does it have awareness of its existence. Or an awareness of awareness. "It knows that it knows." Not to be confused with a memory or program saying that it knows. It is conscious?

That's not even what I asked. They AREN'T conscious, because they have not evolved to use their stack as a long-term memory cache. Bacterium aren't 'conscious' in the sense you are talking about, but they are still alive...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

That's not even what I asked. They AREN'T conscious, because they have not evolved to use their stack as a long-term memory cache. Bacterium aren't 'conscious' in the sense you are talking about, but they are still alive...?

---

My point was that programming ignores the fundamental Reality by which the actions of a person even exist. It has nothing to do with memory; consciousness is independent of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

My point was that programming ignores the fundamental Reality by which the actions of a person even exist. It has nothing to do with memory; consciousness is independent of that.

---

So you claim. What is conscious that doesn't have memory?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

So you claim. What is conscious that doesn't have memory?

---

Do you think Alzheimer's-patients counts? By the way I'm pretty sure I can remember my forth birthday party, and maybe even my third! :D

I wouldn't consider it alive per say. It doesn't have a soul, or a "brain"

However, by dedicating a part of your life to it, I would say that it gains a kind of fragment of life. This reminds me of a game called "pocket god" for the iphone. You become the ruler of a small tribe of people, and I've wondered the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

I wouldn't consider it alive per say. It doesn't have a soul, or a "brain"

---

Trees aren't alive?

no. you have to have a "brain" to be alive.

Wait, organisms? DAMNIT

I thought you said digital orgasms. I'm out of here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Do you think Alzheimer's-patients counts? By the way I'm pretty sure I can remember my forth birthday party, and maybe even my third! :D

---

I have never heard of Alzheimer's completely eliminating someone's memory before. Only parts of long-term and most short-term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

I wouldn't consider it alive per say. It doesn't have a soul, or a "brain"

However, by dedicating a part of your life to it, I would say that it gains a kind of fragment of life. This reminds me of a game called "pocket god" for the iphone. You become the ruler of a small tribe of people, and I've wondered the same thing.

---

Boy, that's not what I was getting at at all. Controlling a simulation of people that does not simulate every aspect their existence is hardly life.

What I mean is, the simulated people in your game don't actually possess any characteristics of living entities, and are mostly controlled by predetermined interactions instead of procedural code, they only appear to behave like living entities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Trees aren't alive?

---

Well, they are alive in the sense that they are growing organisms that take in water and food to grow, but I wouldn't say that they have a "life".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Boy, that's not what I was getting at at all. Controlling a simulation of people that does not simulate every aspect their existence is hardly life.

What I mean is, the simulated people in your game don't actually possess any characteristics of living entities, and are mostly controlled by predetermined interactions instead of procedural code, they only appear to behave like living entities.

---

Okay, NOW I think you hit the nail on the head there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

Well, they are alive in the sense that they are growing organisms that take in water and food to grow, but I wouldn't say that they have a "life".

---

I bet they never get invited to parties

I bet they get invited to Ents though.

(Sorry, that's an obscure joke...) :V

you're being a little hasty in calling that obscure. It's better to be unhasty.

It's obscure because Cambridge parties are called Ents. :B

See what I did there..?

I'm aware that LotR is a rather large phenomenon.

I walked right into it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

Okay, NOW I think you hit the nail on the head there.

---

Really? Because my point is that Evolve 4.0 does do that. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

I have never heard of Alzheimer's completely eliminating someone's memory before. Only parts of long-term and most short-term.

---

Well it doesn't take away the sense of self. It does confuse the personal self, but the personal self is no consciousness. Same thing with cutting off limbs, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Really? Because my point is that Evolve 4.0 does do that. :)

---

Uh...I know. That was my point.

You said in your first post that...

Quote:

---

I wouldn't consider it alive per say. It doesn't have a soul, or a "brain"

---

A soul is a non-term so I'd prefer you didn't use it, but brains are NOT a requisite of being alive.

Quote:

---

However, by dedicating a part of your life to it, I would say that it gains a kind of fragment of life.

---

That is not what I was getting at. Evolve 4.0 simulates every aspect of the organism; simulations like The Sims, Sim City, e.t.c. Aren't actually simulations at all. They're more like interactive statistics consoles that do a lot of high-level work without any low-level functions behind them. My point was that Digital Organisms are essentially alive in the sens that they LIVE, not that they are 'thought of as being alive or personable'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Well it doesn't take away the sense of self. It does confuse the personal self, but the personal self is no consciousness. Same thing with cutting off limbs, etc.

---

Cutting off your limbs =/= Damaging your brain when it comes to consciousness. I have no clue how you can compare the two.

Well, no conciousness means no life to me. The characters, although following artificial interactivity are still only electric pulses running through an extremely complex maze of gates, and bridges. (a computer) The characters have no self awareness level, so I don't consider them alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

Well, no conciousness means no life to me. The characters, although following artificial interactivity are still only electric pulses running through an extremely complex maze of gates, and bridges. (a computer) The characters have no self awareness level, so I don't consider them alive.

---

I don't really think that single-celled organisms like bacteria have a self awareness either, but they're still alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

Well, no conciousness means no life to me. The characters, although following artificial interactivity are still only electric pulses running through an extremely complex maze of gates, and bridges. (a computer) The characters have no self awareness level, so I don't consider them alive.

---

Tell me: Did you read the first post of this thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

Well, no conciousness means no life to me. The characters, although following artificial interactivity are still only electric pulses running through an extremely complex maze of gates, and bridges. (a computer) The characters have no self awareness level, so I don't consider them alive.

---

Signals in the brain are just chemical signals running through an extremely complex maze of neurons. The characters have no self awareness level, so I don't consider them alive.

I believe we are more than that. I believe that we also have a soul.

That's nice. I believe that the center of the earth is made of peanut butter. Those damn geologists-- Always making up stuff. Molten metal? That's just crazy talk. Why do you think we call the upper layer 'the crust'? Duuuhh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khh

I don't really think that single-celled organisms like bacteria have a self awareness either, but they're still alive.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

Well, they are alive in the sense that they are growing organisms that take in water and food to grow, but I wouldn't say that they have a "life".

---

I think we can draw some kind of line here. Plankenton, algea, and stufflike that are alive in a sense. But I don't think they are alive like humans are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

That's nice. I believe that the center of the earth is made of peanut butter. Those geologists-- Always making up stuff. Molten metal? That's just crazy talk. Why do you think we call the upper layer 'the crust'? Duuuhh.

---

There is no reason to believe the earth is filled with peanut butter. There is reason to believe we have souls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by René Descartes

I think, therefore I am

---

... and I also think that I'm more than a lump of matter and energy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

There is no reason to believe the earth is filled with peanut butter. There is reason to believe we have souls.



And I also think that I'm more than a lump of matter and energy.

---

There is absolutely a reason to believe that the center of the earth is made out of peanut butter: My parents have told me my entire life, my religious doctrine says so, and all of my friends believe that!

There is absolutely no reason to believe in a soul. None. You are an extremely complex 'lump of matter and energy', however. Everything that you are composed of is found in nature. Why are supernatural explanations needed? Just because?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

There is absolutely a reason to believe that the center of the earth is made out of peanut butter: My parents have told me my entire life, my religious doctrine says so, and all of my friends believe that!

There is absolutely no reason to believe in a soul. None. You are an extremely complex 'lump of matter and energy', however. Everything that you are composed of is found in nature. Why are supernatural explanations needed? Just because?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by René Descartes

I think, therefore I am

---

... and I also think that I'm more than a lump of matter and energy.

---

I have conciousness. I have emotions. I have feelings. I have a soul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

I have conciousness. I have emotions. I have feelings. I have a soul.

---

That's still not evidence. That's a biased inference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

I have conciousness. I have emotions. I have feelings. I have a soul.

---

Even though you have those it does not make Christianity or any religion the truth nor right.

I say you this, take those four words: Consciousness, emotions, feelings, soul and let that be your basis for seeking knowledge and truth. You need to know nothing else to start that quest, if you desire to do so.

It would be productive for you (and many others).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Cutting off your limbs =/= Damaging your brain when it comes to consciousness. I have no clue how you can compare the two.

---

You can compare the two by understanding that the "sense of self" is not a product of neuronal networks, memory or even body parts. It is a substrate that lies deep within subjectivity itself and it is not subject to change at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

You can compare the two by understanding that the "sense of self" is not a product of neuronal networks, memory or even body parts. It is a substrate that lies deep within subjectivity itself and it is not subject to change at all.

---

Really? How do mind-altering drugs work then?
Could it have something to do with the brain chemistry?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

You can compare the two by understanding that the "sense of self" is not a product of neuronal networks, memory or even body parts. It is a substrate that lies deep within subjectivity itself and it is not subject to change at all.

---

Well that is just about as ridiculous as it gets. Sense of self is certainly a product of your neural network. If you damage someones brain enough, you can completely eliminate their consciousness without killing them. If you were able to wipe someone's memory completely clean, then they would basically become an infant again, with no self awareness or proper perception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

Really? How do mind-altering drugs work then?
Could it have something to do with the brain chemistry?

---

It is related to brain chemistry and also awareness. The "sense of self" is still the absolute condition ("I"), regardless of what perceptions arise. Altering conditions can only influence awareness of what already prevails, and in some cases it doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Well that is just about as ridiculous as it gets. Sense of self is certainly a product of your neural network. If you damage someones brain enough, you can completely eliminate their consciousness without killing them. If you were able to wipe someone's memory completely clean, then they would basically become an infant again, with no self awareness or proper perception.

---

The "sense of self" an/or consciousness is also what brings about a heart beat. If you don't believe that, there's no use arguing. We are talking about different "conscisousness" again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

It is related to brain chemistry and also awareness. The "sense of self" is still the absolute condition ("I"), regardless of what perceptions arise.

---

The "I" is just a result of past and present perceptions, nothing else. Awareness is the product of brain chemistry, it can not be separated from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

The "sense of self" an/or consciousness is also what brings about a heart beat. If you don't believe that, there's no use arguing. We are talking about different "conscisousness" again.

---

...What?

If you've read Godel, Escher, Bach you know that mathematcal equations, at more complex levels, begin to refer to themselves. At the level of molecules and 0/1 networks (which is what the brain is) this manifests as life. Yes, digital organisms are alive, and will continue to evolve.

Think of how the first cells operated, probably very much like how our simple programs do. Function.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pringlechip

If you've read Godel, Escher, Bach you know that mathematcal equations, at more complex levels, begin to refer to themselves. At the level of molecules and 0/1 networks (which is what the brain is) this manifests as life. Yes, digital organisms are alive, and will continue to evolve.

---

Lol, sorry that went right over my head... how does that work? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

...What?

---

Do you believe that life has valid existence or is it "just an accident of the universe?" If you think "life" is valid, I say consciousness is the life-force, and it dominates our choices and prevailing intelligence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

The "I" is just a result of past and present perceptions, nothing else. Awareness is the product of brain chemistry, it can not be separated from it.

---

That personal "I" is the false self, yes. I'm talking about the impersonal "I" that is in complete Unity with the Universe.

Explain why awareness is a product of brain chemistry. :/

You aren't making any sense at all.

Consciousness is a concept invented by humans to describe a specific behavior. Behavior is an emergent property of systems like organisms who have nervous systems and can accurately, actively respond to complex external and internal stimuli.

I think what you are missing or stepping over here is that consciousness isn't some mystical thing that humans have (Though arguably our behavior is as complex as it gets) it is a behavior. Consciousness is what a system has when it can can actively determine itself from other systems and refer to itself. All behaviors are derived from neural activity, thus consciousness is derived from it as well.

IMO, stuff that is alive must have independent reasoning, IE: not AI

However, this brings upon the question of if WE are just a complex AI program following a set of rules that a higher race has given us.

this question was actually brought up when a friend and i were messing around with cleverbot. The program appears real, but after debate, we came to conclusion that the thing that makes it alive is the ability to reason and infer.

also, what makes us alive? I mean, we are just a network of cells sending information to each other are we not? and our brains are a complex network of nerves and stored reaction, are they not?

I would say...maybe? It's not "alive" by our understanding of the term, but perhaps we're computer programs, too. How do we know that we're not merely the AI creations of another race of beings?

I would define life as follows:
It must be able to reproduce, if even just at the cellular level
It must be able to adapt
It must be able to respond independently, without some "omnipotent" being directly influencing its behavior.

Probably some other criteria, but these are the best ones I can come up with. So, following this definition of life, the computer programs would be considered to be alive, provided humans weren't mucking about too much with them.

In response to the original question, yes, these organisms do reflect certain aspect of how we usually perceive life, and thus is does indeed classify as a kind of life. Keep in mind though, that we have different kinds of life in this world. Some life doesn't have a brain and some life is single-celled.

About the entire interesting discussion we have going on in here, then my personal point of view, is that our brain is merely an ultra complex neural network. We do not have free will, as free will is an illogical concept. Everything we think, everything we feel, every reaction that we have to any kind of stimuli, is based in earlier experiences and stimuli, thus, what happens in the universe around us, our environment, is what defines us.
That said, I believe that quantum mechanics imbues the universe with a certain randomnes, which unfortunately doesn't allow us to say we have free will, but atleast it makes the universe completely unpredictable, and thus our lifes and what we experience are not completely predestined.

Believing in souls, and that souls give us some kind of free will, has always appeared to me as a desperate move that people make, so that they can feel more secure in their existence.

Before somebody jumps me and says "Then how come I'm not just running around doing random things all the time. We are completely random, right?", then re-read what I wrote. If you still feel I need to clarify my views, or if you feel that my views are faulty (the entire quantum thing might be faulty, I'm not very knowledged on the subject), then please, go ahead.

I think this entire discussion is very very interesting and engaging, and I'm impressed that we've managed to keep it as civil as we have.