Life Does Not Exist

[Clara Tea]

Very largely we have indeed defined a specific set of physical properties and capacities that will distinguish life from non-life.

The problems have only arisen at the lower fringe, when we try to classify, first, viruses, and then prions. It may be that the nearer we get to the mud, the harder it is to draw clear lines.

The really interesting problems will arise in AI. My first draft of an answer there says that what makes us biological entities 'alive' includes the way our brains operate very largely by responding to situations and questions with feelings before proceeding to seek solutions.

That is, our capacities to reason are encased within emotions, which determine such basic things as WHAT we want to do or solve, and WHY we want to do or solve it, and WHETHER it's urgent and WHETHER it justifies particular levels of expense ─ and so on.

Without emotions, we wouldn't get out of bed in the morning or any later time, because we would have no motive to do so, and the fact that immobility would lead to stress and pain and ultimately cessation of function would be irrelevant from our PoV ─ because without feelings, everything is irrelevant.

And while we can get our robots to simulate particular emotional responses (as robot dogs already do and no doubt sex dolls will), it seems to me the moral question doesn't arise for us unless and until we see something authentically similar to our emotions in our bots. And when the moral question arises, so do the questions about whether they're 'alive' in a meaningful sense ─ or so it seems to me in this first draft.

Will we get to the point that androids judge us, assume that we don't have emotions (at least not like their emotions), then eliminate us?

When we experiment with artificial intelligence, and "almost" get it right, do we scrap an android with a nearly perfect set of emotions because we want to try again? Would we be creating and destroying life? Murder?

If we developed androids that don't want to work, but just replicate and sit around on couches watching football games (hmm....we seem to have succeeded in duplicating human emotion), do we continue to pay for their housing and maintenance or do we scrap them?

Maybe this is the joy and frustration of God?

 

[blü 2]

Will we get to the point that androids judge us, assume that we don't have emotions (at least not like their emotions), then eliminate us?

This is where 'feelings' come into the picture. Why would an autonomous robot 'want' to do anything it was not programed to do? Why would it 'want' to observe, act, move, at all, even if the roof was caving in on it?

So if we wish to produce pseudo-humans, we'll need to equip them with emotions as close to human emotions as we can. Isaac Asimov doesn't put the question in those terms, but he broke the ice, you might say, when in his stories he required all robots to be programed with his 'three laws of robotics' ─
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

When we experiment with artificial intelligence, and "almost" get it right, do we scrap an android with a nearly perfect set of emotions because we want to try again? Would we be creating and destroying life? Murder?

If our understanding of our own brain functions has reached the point where we can precisely describe our own self-awareness and the principles that make it work, then yes, we'll be in a position to consider exactly those questions. The problems will arise when we get ahead of ourselves in developing AI, which the record suggests we're inclined to do.

We'll also have the problem of mechanized pets, designed to appeal to us in the way dogs (in particular) do, so that despite the indifference of the actual mechanism involved, we'll form emotional attachments to them and regard their injury or destruction as in effect criminal.

If we developed androids that don't want to work, but just replicate and sit around on couches watching football games (hmm....we seem to have succeeded in duplicating human emotion), do we continue to pay for their housing and maintenance or do we scrap them?

Not if we've also given them the vote. But otherwise, sure.

One live possibility is that humans will never be able to survive eg interstellar space travel. Two solutions might be considered from the start ─ genetically modifying (volunteer) humans so that they can both travel and continue to breed; and devising Homo mechanicus, our exact machine counterparts, with emotions and so on, but not the same vulnerabilities as humans. That's to say, if we look at our own record, we'll want to colonize the galaxy, and then the galaxies; and H. mechanicus may be the only possible way of doing that ─ at least until someone can invent faster-than-light travel.

 

[alypius]

IOW, why aren't my atoms part of a rock? Chance I suppose. They likely were at one time and likely will be again. At this moment in time they are not.

If the atoms were part of something that carried out the activity of growth but then later were part of something that did not carry out the activity of growth, then how could the activity be inherent to atoms in general?

 

[Nakosis]

If the atoms were part of something that carried out the activity of growth but then later were part of something that did not carry out the activity of growth, then how could the activity be inherent to atoms in general?

They are not, IMO. There are four fundamental forces at "play" in the universe.
The Four Fundamental Forces of Nature
The four fundamental forces of nature are at the root of every interaction in the universe.

 

[alypius]

The four fundamental forces of nature are at the root of every interaction in the universe.

If these forces are at work in all atoms and are responsible for every interaction, then why do only some groups of atoms (plants, animals) display peculiar activities like growth and nutrition?

 

[rational experiences]

Will we get to the point that androids judge us, assume that we don't have emotions (at least not like their emotions), then eliminate us?

When we experiment with artificial intelligence, and "almost" get it right, do we scrap an android with a nearly perfect set of emotions because we want to try again? Would we be creating and destroying life? Murder?

If we developed androids that don't want to work, but just replicate and sit around on couches watching football games (hmm....we seem to have succeeded in duplicating human emotion), do we continue to pay for their housing and maintenance or do we scrap them?

Maybe this is the joy and frustration of God?

Remove man who said all advice.

You do own bio death absolute self identity removed.

Idea fake said only by a bio human life thinking evilly. Says to self con and coerce believe my thoughts just because I say so. Tries to gain group support to then bully the subject by intent.

One human not you or your subject wishes the same for you.

 

[rational experiences]

If these forces are at work in all atoms and are responsible for every interaction, then why do only some groups of atoms (plants, animals) display peculiar activities like growth and nutrition?

The four human aware advised fundamentals in nature are earths four seasons.

A human says an atom. Draws a picture of its body. Says exactly what it is as the separate ended body as the atom only.

Con coerced belief.

Does he put his bio body inside a nuclear reactor as he says I am the atom....or is he nuclear mind defected by designed causes Claiming I out the atom into destruction now my mind communicates back to a natural atom.

As a liar I can no longer think correctly.

 

[Nakosis]

If these forces are at work in all atoms and are responsible for every interaction, then why do only some groups of atoms (plants, animals) display peculiar activities like growth and nutrition?

Through time and the dispersion of matter and these forces throughout the universe.
The conditions necessary for abiogenesis is extremely rare.

 

[alypius]

Through time and the dispersion of matter and these forces throughout the universe.
The conditions necessary for abiogenesis is extremely rare.

Is there a difference between abiogenesis which refers to beginning, and current observations of plants carrying out activities like growing and reproducing?

 

[Nakosis]

Is there a difference between abiogenesis which refers to beginning, and current observations of plants carrying out activities like growing and reproducing?

I believe so.
In the current conditions of earth for example, void of any life. Earth would likely be a dead planet. IOW, the conditions that at one time existed on earth which allowed abiogenesis no longer exist.

 

[alypius]

I believe so.
In the current conditions of earth for example, void of any life. Earth would likely be a dead planet. IOW, the conditions that at one time existed on earth which allowed abiogenesis no longer exist.

Isn't there a difference between explaining how life started and the current observation of plants carrying out peculiar activities like growing and reproducing (which stones and rocks [also atoms] do not)?

 

[Nakosis]

Isn't there a difference between explaining how life started and the current observation of plants carrying out peculiar activities like growing and reproducing (which stones and rocks [also atoms] do not)?

That is the assumption. I just thought maybe it ought to be questioned.