₦airaland Forum

DeepSight I often have things I come across that I want to talk to you about but I feel don't warrant a new thread for each one so I want to have all those conversations in this one thread.

Let's start with this one:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4kC-XCEXaQ

So a robot can be made to blink some what convincingly like a real human, to me it supports my position that machines can be made to perform things you'd reserve as only living things can do.

What do you think?

LordReed:
Let's start with this one:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4kC-XCEXaQ

So a robot can be made to blink some what convincingly like a real human, to me it supports my position that machines can be made to perform things you'd reserve as only living things can do.

What do you think?

Dear friend I have no doubt that there will be robots in future which will walk and talk amongst us while no one will be able to tell that they are robots and not human - so exact and so complete will the imitation be.

And that is if pilot versions of such do not already walk amongst us. A thing which I would not doubt when one considers that most advanced technology is often secret and reserved decades ahead of introduction to the public. GPS which we use today for civil purposes was secret military technology decades before being released for civilian use. So one must shudder when one wonders what secret technology is already in existence today but simply classified.

Having said all this I think if I guess right, the real question is about to what extent such robots can become self conscious. I still believe that what can be achieved is such a perfect imitation of consciousness that it will be impossible for one interacting with the robot to tell the difference. And not actual consciousness which I believe requires a spark of life, not just an imitation of life.

DeepSight:
Dear friend I have no doubt that there will be robots in future which will walk and talk amongst us while no one will be able to tell that they are robots and not human - so exact and so complete will the imitation be.

And that is if pilot versions of such do not already walk amongst us. A thing which I would not doubt when one considers that most advanced technology is often secret and reserved decades ahead of introduction to the public. GPS which we use today for civil purposes was secret military technology decades before being released for civilian use. So one must shudder when one wonders what secret technology is already in existence today but simply classified.

Having said all this I think if I guess right, the real question is about to what extent such robots can become self conscious. I still believe that what can be achieved is such a perfect imitation of consciousness that it will be impossible for one interacting with the robot to tell the difference. And not actual consciousness which I believe requires a spark of life, not just an imitation of life.

I would like to distinguish this sort of "perfect imitation of consciousness" from our own experience of consciousness. For that I would use 2 terms "Artificial life" versus "Biological life". Our type of experience I would class as Biological life while the other is classed as Artificial life. I am making this distinction because I think that even though it is not the same as our Biological life, that perfect imitation of consciousness will have become a new form of life, with its own set of characteristics.

LordReed:
I would like to distinguish this sort of "perfect imitation of consciousness" from our own experience of consciousness. For that I would use 2 terms "Artificial life" versus "Biological life". Our type of experience I would class as Biological life while the other is classed as Artificial life. I am making this distinction because I think that even though it is not the same as our Biological life, that perfect imitation of consciousness will have become a new form of life, with its own set of characteristics.

Well, we will first have to determine what exactly we mean by life. Because if we go the way you are going, we can already begin to say machines such as computers and phones are a life form. I think we have to be more circumspect.

Define first what constitutes life.

Let me go first by rendering my own definition. I will not go with Mr. Niger D (Movement, Respiration, Irritability, Growth, Excretion, Reproduction, Death) - because this is already the biological definition in terms of the characteristics of living things. So lets just leave it in the background, as you have specifically talked about the possibility of non biological life.

So I would say that a living thing is something that is self conscious, self aware and / or possesses feeling. By feeling, I do not mean emotion, I mean something closer to the "irritability" in Mr. Niger D. That is to say, the thing must be capable of feeling impressions made on it. That is akin to consciousness and awareness as well, but more subtle - as a living thing, it must feel. This must be distinguished from an automated capacity to respond to external stimuli - in the way that a fire alarm can, for example. It rather means a capacity to actually feel impressions in a subjective way.

To this extent I dont believe that machines can be alive.

Let me add something else. I mentioned the spark of life. As you know, we diverge here in our views for I believe in an intangible non material spark of life - whereas you do not. For me, that intangible spark of life is key to what a living thing is.

Mark you, intangibility simply means non physical, it does not mean non-existing.

DeepSight:
Well, we will first have to determine what exactly we mean by life. Because if we go the way you are going, we can already begin to say machines such as computers and phones are a life form. I think we have to be more circumspect.

Define first what constitutes life.

Let me go first by rendering my own definition. I will not go with Mr. Niger D (Movement, Respiration, Irritability, Growth, Excretion, Reproduction, Death) - because this is already the biological definition in terms of the characteristics of living things. So lets just leave it in the background, as you have specifically talked about the possibility of non biological life.

So I would say that a living thing is something that is self conscious, self aware and / or possesses feeling. By feeling, I do not mean emotion, I mean something closer to the "irritability" in Mr. Niger D. That is to say, the thing must be capable of feeling impressions made on it. That is akin to consciousness and awareness as well, but more subtle - as a living thing, it must feel. This must be distinguished from an automated capacity to respond to external stimuli - in the way that a fire alarm can, for example. It rather means a capacity to actually feel impressions in a subjective way.

To this extent I dont believe that machines can be alive.

You have described Biological life and I have no issues with that. What we are going to have to grapple with is how to characterise the emerging Artificial life. Without any doubt it may not have certain characteristics of Biological life but I am envisaging a few similarities and certainly whole new ones unique to the new life form.

Artificial life forms will be alive but not in the way you are used to.

Let me add something else. I mentioned the spark of life. As you know, we diverge here in our views for I believe in an intangible non material spark of life - whereas you do not. For me, that intangible spark of life is key to what a living thing is.

Mark you, intangibility simply means non physical, it does not mean non-existing.

Even granting you the intangible non material spark of life, it still doesn't detract from the Artificial life being a different type of life.

You have to realise that at some point in the history of the universe Biological life didn't exist.

LordReed:
You have described Biological life and I have no issues with that. What we are going to have to grapple with is how to characterise the emerging Artificial life. Without any doubt it may not have certain characteristics of Biological life but I am envisaging a few similarities and certainly whole new ones unique to the new life form.

Artificial life forms will be alive but not in the way you are used to.



Even granting you the intangible non material spark of life, it still doesn't detract from the Artificial life being a different type of life.

You have to realise that at some point in the history of the universe Biological life didn't exist.

Remember I said we have to define life first, and I have given my definition. What is yours?

DeepSight:
Remember I said we have to define life first, and I have given my definition. What is yours?

I said:

LordReed:
You have described Biological life and I have no issues with that.

We agree so I don't think I need a different definition.

LordReed:
I said:



We agree so I don't think I need a different definition.

You do because the kind of life you are talking about is not biological.

DeepSight:
You do because the kind of life you are talking about is not biological.

Yes and I acknowledged that already.

If you are asking me to describe a life that is not yet in existence then I can't give you an answer. Best I can do is speculate that it would have certain characteristics.

LordReed:
Yes and I acknowledged that already.

If you are asking me to describe a life that is not yet in existence then I can't give you an answer. Best I can do is speculate that it would have certain characteristics.

Then it would be impossible to progress this line of speculation.

Unless you have an idea of the "certain characteristics" you refer to.

LordReed . . . .
Enjoy . . . .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH_O8M_tWzc

DeepSight:
LordReed . . . .
Enjoy . . . .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH_O8M_tWzc

Thanks for this. Still watching, hope to give it undivided attention today.

DeepSight:
LordReed . . . .
Enjoy . . . .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH_O8M_tWzc

The way I see Peterson is someone who thinks there is value in the myths, legends and fairytale stories of our ancient past that can help motivate us. I wouldn't argue with him if that's where he stops. Rather he goes on to harness the gullibility of the religious to make it seem like their beliefs in these myths, legends and fairytale stories are not only valid but true because he wants to make a buck. I dunno why but it just roils my insides.

LordReed:
The way I see Peterson is someone who thinks there is value in the myths, legends and fairytale stories of our ancient past that can help motivate us. I wouldn't argue with him if that's where he stops. Rather he goes on to harness the gullibility of the religious to make it seem like their beliefs in these myths, legends and fairytale stories are not only valid but true because he wants to make a buck. I dunno why but it just roils my insides.

+
His comical avoidance of the question on the virgin birth when it is clear he believes in it casts him as lacking in intellectual honesty.

DeepSight:
Define first what constitutes life.

Let me go first by rendering my own definition. I will not go with Mr. Niger D (Movement, Respiration, Irritability, Growth, Excretion, Reproduction, Death) - because this is already the biological definition in terms of the characteristics of living things. So lets just leave it in the background, as you have specifically talked about the possibility of non biological life..

Permit me to add motive and intent to your definition.

A machine does not have those two things, apart from that given it by it's inventor, while humans have the free will to determine their own intents and motive.

For example. I can choose to murder you, but a machine can not independently choose to murder you.

LordReed:
Artificial life forms will be alive but not in the way you are used to.

This is why I agree with deepsight on this issue, my Lord.

You need to define what this artificial life is, and show how it differs to the biological life we all know.

budaatum:
Permit me to add motive and intent to your definition.

A machine does not have those two things, apart from that given it by it's inventor, while humans have the free will to determine their own intents and motive.

For example. I can choose to murder you, but a machine can not independently choose to murder you.

+
Good point.

budaatum:
This is why I agree with deepsight on this issue, my Lord.

You need to define what this artificial life is, and show how it differs to the biological life we all know.

DeepSight:
Then it would be impossible to progress this line of speculation.

Unless you have an idea of the "certain characteristics" you refer to.

Artificial life is life that doesn't start from a biological or natural process. I would say that artificial life will have some of the same characteristics as biological life like Movement, Response to it's environment, Growth, Excretion, Reproduction.

DeepSight:
+
His comical avoidance of the question on the virgin birth when it is clear he believes in it casts him as lacking in intellectual honesty.

Yeah so clownish and disingenuous.

LordReed:
Artificial life is life that doesn't start from a biological or natural process. I would say that artificial life will have some of the same characteristics as biological life like Movement, Response to it's environment, Growth, Excretion, Reproduction.

But will it have its own motive and intent, two things biological life definitely have?

I mean, a car moves and responds to its environment, and it excretes through its exhaust, though it can't reproduce, but it can grow if I attach a tow cart to it. So is the car artificially alive?

Give me examples so I can understand please.

budaatum:
But will it have its own motive and intent, two things biological life definitely have?

I mean, a car moves and responds to its environment, and it excretes through its exhaust, though it can't reproduce, but it can grow if I attach a tow cart to it. So is the car artificially alive?

Give me examples so I can understand please.

Not all all biological life has motive and intent but yes it would.

No the car isn't artificially alive because its operations are not "self motivated".

There are no examples of artificially alive lifeforms we know of. These are my personal speculations on what I imagine is the direction our technological advances will lead to. Might never happen or might be completely different from what I am saying.

LordReed:
Not all all biological life has motive and intent but yes it would.

No the car isn't artificially alive because its operations are not "self motivated".

There are no examples of artificially alive lifeforms we know of. This is my personal speculation.

+
Such as?

DeepSight:
+
Such as?

Sorry see my edited comment.

LordReed:
Sorry see my edited comment.

+
The problem remains what really can be described as life or living as opposed to a mere machine which can move and react in a pre programmed way.

A living thing must have subjective feeling, subjective irritability. It was be conscious of it's environment in a subjective sensory way. Not in a mechanistic programmed way.

LordReed:
Not all all biological life has motive and intent but yes it would.

No the car isn't artificially alive because its operations are not "self motivated".

There are no examples of artificially alive lifeforms we know of. This are my personal speculations on what I imagine is the direction our technological advances will lead to. Might never happen or might be completely different from what I am saying.

Speculations accepted. I however want to argue against your, "Not all all biological life has motive and intent".

My position is all biological life has the intent to avoid death and continue living, barring those that commit suicide of course, which I'd place under the exception, as in pertaining to the few. This intent then is motive, as in, biological life is motivated to do whatever fulfils the intent to prolong its life. I think all lifeforms have this motive and intent or they wouldn't have life.

Basically, if I don't have the prolongation of my life as a motive, I wouldn't intend to get out of bed every morning. And unless someone else provides this intent and motive on my behalf, I'd pretty soon become a non-life.

What you think?

budaatum:
Speculations accepted. I however want to argue against your, "Not all all biological life has motive and intent".

My position is all biological life has the intent to avoid death and continue living, barring those that commit suicide of course, which I'd place under the exception, as in pertaining to the few. This intent then is motive, as in, biological life is motivated to do whatever fulfils the intent to prolong its life. I think all lifeforms have this motive and intent or they wouldn't have life.

Basically, if I don't have the prolongation of my life as a motive, I wouldn't intend to get out of bed every morning. And unless someone else provides this intent and motive on my behalf, I'd pretty soon become a non-life.

What you think?

I think I can agree with your use of the word in this manner. I was thinking of it in the manner that conscious beings would have it.

DeepSight:
+
The problem remains what really can be described as life or living as opposed to a mere machine which can move and react in a pre programmed way.

A living thing must have subjective feeling, subjective irritability. It was be conscious of it's environment in a subjective sensory way. Not in a mechanistic programmed way.

Because it won't be preprogrammed, it will learn and adapt just like biological beings do.

DeepSight:
Well, we will first have to determine what exactly we mean by life. Because if we go the way you are going, we can already begin to say machines such as computers and phones are a life form. I think we have to be more circumspect.

Define first what constitutes life.

Let me go first by rendering my own definition. I will not go with Mr. Niger D (Movement, Respiration, Irritability, Growth, Excretion, Reproduction, Death) - because this is already the biological definition in terms of the characteristics of living things. So lets just leave it in the background, as you have specifically talked about the possibility of non biological life.

So I would say that a living thing is something that is self conscious, self aware and / or possesses feeling. By feeling, I do not mean emotion, I mean something closer to the "irritability" in Mr. Niger D. That is to say, the thing must be capable of feeling impressions made on it. That is akin to consciousness and awareness as well, but more subtle - as a living thing, it must feel. This must be distinguished from an automated capacity to respond to external stimuli - in the way that a fire alarm can, for example. It rather means a capacity to actually feel impressions in a subjective way.

To this extent I dont believe that machines can be alive.

Let me add something else. I mentioned the spark of life. As you know, we diverge here in our views for I believe in an intangible non material spark of life - whereas you do not. For me, that intangible spark of life is key to what a living thing is.

Mark you, intangibility simply means non physical, it does not mean non-existing.

Have you read the short story 'the last question's by Isaac Asimov? If no, please do.
If yes, do you think the cosmic AC is self aware and alive?

justlove91:
Have you read the short story 'the last question's by Isaac Asimov? If no, please do.
If yes, do you think the cosmic AC is self aware and alive?

Haven't read it myself, so went looking.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XOtx4sa9k4?si=54pVKNmkB-asMtiE

budaatum:
Haven't read it myself, so went looking.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XOtx4sa9k4?si=54pVKNmkB-asMtiE

So, do you think it is self conscious?