is artificial ‘life’ possible? [not AI] what then the implications!

[_Z_]

is artificial ‘life’ possible? [not AI] what then the implications!
its a horrible thought i know, but one that brings many ideas about what we are to the table.
if we built a robot that is as dextrous and ‘intelligent’ as we are, it would still be a robot made of cables and microchips - basically a complicated machine. what if it were given the capability to observe, to see and feel the same way we do; would it then be alive?
point 1. i don’t know exactly what the dividing line is between sentient and not, living and not, but the thing that is ‘spiritual’ or a soul is connected via the nervous system mainly, so if you built an organic robot would it be alive and have a soul like us, what then if it was partially organic? in theory, given that ‘like attracts like’ is the approximate basis by which we are born into our bodies, if we made a being with all the necessary faculties then would it be alive?
point 2. lets say that the above is achieved; what are the ethical/spiritual/religious implications?!?!?!?!?!?

[Miss Amy]

Did you see that they made a robot that can do operations underwater and in space?

[Tao_Equus]

A key indicator of what could be called life is its ability to self reproduce. Without that it is not life but a created object regardless of how intelligent its design is. An android that sought out the materials for and then constructed copies of itself on its own initiative would constitute life. But if that was part of its program it would not. I think eventualy mankind will be forced into recognising some of our own creations have become sentient and living even tho they are inorganic. This thought is not entirely comfortable though.

TE

[_Z_]

tao eq,
no the thought is not comfortable and one part of me hopes something changes before we go down that road - as i feel it will. the idea of the thread is to open up what we think life actually is. to me reproduction is the most basic aspect of life, i am trying to look at the opposite end of the scale, and to find what is it that is conducive to the soul and its interactions with form.

Z

[flowperson]

Hi...The best definition of this that I've run across was in Scientific American some years ago, "continuance and deepening inner complexity". These are the touchstone principles of those who strive to apply AI and robotic behaviors amidst the world of humans.

flow....

[wil]

some out there envision what others deem uncomfortable...

http://teaminfinity.com/

• Once the robots are up and running, what do we pay them ?
• Once the geo-thermal power plants converting mantle heat to electricity are up, who do we pay for the electricity to power the robots and everything else requiring power ?
• Once the robots are up, out & about collecting raw materials to make other robots and everything else, who do we pay to collect raw material and distribute finished products these same robots will make & distribute ?
• Once the A/I Computer systems are up and running, who do we pay to make the decisions they will make ?

[Francis king]

ah, but lets look at it another way...

what is emotion and emotionality?

imho, emotion is a conditioned response. Beyond pain and the bodily sensation of discomfort, we don't actually feel anything, do we? Instead, we think we feel.

take for example, womens intuition... these intuitive females are not using their psychic senses to be privy to hidden information- instead, they are responding to the non verbal cues of body language and vocal intonation to determine the hidden states of the speaker... yet this seemingly innate intuition is no more than a learned behaviour, much like love and hate and compassion and arrogance are learned behaviours...

We do not emerge from the womb with anything except the ability to feel pain, breathe and cry. Everything else, we learn.

and that's everything... not just some things... How to love, what to hate, how to feel when we eat celery and what to think about spiders. We learn how to eat, speak, what to think about, how to walk... emotions are not innate- they are conditioned responses...

so... if we, for instance, programmed our machine to think that untruths were considered wrong by the other members of society, and that such things should be hidden, then our machine might cover his mouth with his hand, as a child might, after a lie, but only if we also teach him a child's logic also. We would then have to deliberately indoctrinate our robot to believe the same things we did about love, hope, fear, bravery, nobility, social order, rules of society, etiquette, morality, etc, etc, then yes, the robot would be no less human than we ourselves are...

of course, this would have implications for those who believe that the soul is some eternal and solely human feature, but for those like me, who see the soul as consciousness, and possessed by all creatures, i do not see why a robot should be considered less than a human if the robot is capable of processing concepts such as love and power and responding in a socially acceptable manner at the right time... that's all any of us do, after all.. most ppl are little more than robots already... and we don't slate them for it...

of course, the machine would have to think independently of his programming to be considered fully human, perhaps, but if we are honest there's not many humans who are able to think independently of their own programming, is there? phobias, obsessions, fanatical and magical beliefs, delusions, inability to read social cues when intoxicated, this is humanity...

if the world was run by robots we wouldn't need paupers...

[Tao_Equus]

Do androids dream of electric sheep?

[flowperson]

Will robotic hookers seek out robotic Johns, or will hybridized "mixing" occur ? Or...better yet, is this already happening somewhere ?

flow....

[_Z_]

wil
good point, we could have everything for free, but as flow says if they can breed with us or blend by some other means, then they would have to be counted as humans.
i’ll have a personal porn star version please... or three

francis

Beyond pain and the bodily sensation of discomfort, we don’t actually feel anything, do we?

if we think of ourselves as ‘the user’ i think we feel via the nervous system, if that fails we still have feeling but without connection - i would think it is the same for emotions, thoughts and all our other apparently human attributes.

take for example, womens intuition...

i agree and disagree, what you said is true, but if we consider mind and thought at least in part as being extraneous to the human form and that it is universal, then surely there is the possibility of thought/feeling/mind connections in a non physical manner. i very much believe this and use it regularly [as we all do].
that is the part we would have to get into an artificial life-form to make it like us - if i may.
the question for me then is; what does it take to harbour a ‘soul’ [a ‘you’]? is it that we give the android/robot a certain intellectual capacity and hey presto it will gain a soul? i think not as every kind of life has soul or spirit [whatever you want to call it]!

[Francis king]

well, the consciousness generates a force of its own, surely? it becomes, emerges, develops, it is not something that is fixed, so maybe thinking outside of his programming and the sheer fact of his presence in the world would mean he had this "soul"..?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Francis king

so maybe thinking outside of his programming

Ah such luxury one can but dream of

[_Z_]

Ah such luxury one can but dream of

the programming is done in three parts in my understanding...
1. the environment
2. the brain
3. the user and reprogrammer!
none of which are fixed, they are all transient and continually being reprogrammed.

there is an original 'you' or self or 'it' to begin with and this transgresses physicality.

[Francis king]

but, where is this self, then? where does it reside?

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Francis king

but, where is this self, then? where does it reside?

Maybe they will have to develop 2 strains of artificial life, one Cartesian and one Buddhist.

s.