Are the lines between organism and machine becoming blurred?

[Labyrinth]

In a discussion with a friend of mine, this question came up. I was arguing the idea that there is only a difference between organism and machine when you can define 'life' itself, something which neither modern philosophy or science can do.

Thoughts?

 

[Clairaudient]

Machines are limited to a certain set of functions. While organisms can be set to only provide one function, they can adapt and evolve their being to create new things. Though it could be argued that the machines could eventually construct a machine that was able to deduct and evolve based on situation.

 

[WhitemageofDOOM]

I was arguing the idea that there is only a difference between organism and machine when you can define 'life' itself, something which neither modern philosophy or science can do.

Actually, there is an exact scientific definition of life. Machines cannot be classified under it currently and may not ever be able to do so. At the point they are however the difference comes down to mechanical vs. biological which is still certainly a difference.

 

[implodingMan]

A good place to look in this discussion is at the nature of viruses. Viruses are, essentially, machines. Tiny little packages of genetic code wrapped in proteins that exist to execute a single function under a single set of circumstances. They do not move in any way (they get around by drifting), and they cannot reproduce on their own.

Still, when they encounter a cell they start to resemble what we could call alive.

Its an interesting argument.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Machines are limited to a certain set of functions. While organisms can be set to only provide one function, they can adapt and evolve their being to create new things. Though it could be argued that the machines could eventually construct a machine that was able to deduct and evolve based on situation.

We have the AI Director from valve, Thats a good start on adaptive AI.

 

[Jaythulhu]

They're not mingling fast enough for my liking. Bring on the robots / computers I can stick my brain into. No more meat puppets

 

[Blind0bserver]

Actually, there is an exact scientific definition of life.

Out of curiosity, can you possibly tell us what the scientific definition is?

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

Organisms are a specific type of machine.
That is to say, all organisms are machines, but not all machines are organisms.

 

[dahmerszombies]

Did somebody watch ghost in the shell too many times?

 

[the protaginist]

it's not happening fast enough. i want my Iron Man suit,dammit!

 

[Labyrinth]

Did somebody watch ghost in the shell too many times?

Not as such, it's just something which grew out of my curiosity over the phrase "Break my ass to get home tomorrow."

 

[dahmerszombies]

ahh.. well dont think too hard, you'll give yourself a headache. I've spent many a sleepless night thinking about stuff like that.
ANd speaking of anime, have you checked out Serial Experiment Lain? its sort of like ghost in the shell, only more intense, and with way less robots and nudity.

 

[Vigormortis]

In a discussion with a friend of mine, this question came up. I was arguing the idea that there is only a difference between organism and machine when you can define 'life' itself, something which neither modern philosophy or science can do.

Thoughts?

I've actually had this discussion with my friends on numerous occasions. In fact, I've often taken the stance that you have. We don't really have a clear, solid, widely accepted definition on what exactly "life" is.

Organisms rely on organic chemistry and biochemistry for their bodies and what lies within those bodies and all non-low level organisms rely on electrical potentials and neurotransmitters (more biochemistry) to execute their actions and understand the stimuli coming from the environment.

Do you have an example of a machine which does that?

Not yet but we're getting awfully damn close. Machines, or in this case computers, aren't that dissimilar from our own brains in terms of method of function. Just like a computer circuit operates much like turning a switch on and off to get 0's and 1's, our brain reads our neurons as on or off in much the same way. The only differences, besides the general chemistry of our brains being biological in nature and based around carbon, is that a computers "brain" is synthetic. This WILL change in the future with the advent of bio-computers, which use organic circuitry and are already being tested. The other difference is the complexity of our brains as compared to a computer. Our brains house many, many times more neurons than a computer has circuitry. Not to mention the fact that our brains can grow more, new neurons over time. Computers can't do anything like that (yet, nano-machines may change that). Given enough time, we may be able to one day build a computer that is able to learn and experience outside stimuli just as we do. I think it will be at this point that we may have to start considering machines of this nature to be "alive" and sentient. Unlike most though, I don't fear this. I'd embrace it. To advance out technology to that point would allow us to advance ourselves to new levels of consciousness. Merging with our technology could be one of our greatest achievements and the only true way we can move beyond our current state. Rant aside, I think the line is slowly but surely becoming blurred, but I consider that a good thing. As creatures, we're weak, machines are not (at least, not nearly in as many ways as we are). So why don't we "Borg" it up and add their "distinctiveness" to ourselves?

 

[742]

well, eventually computers will grow out of digital to precise analog systems. but this doesnt just poke into what people are, it also makes death a bit fuzzy, if theres no strict definition of life then there cant really be a strict definition of death, can there? well, i mean, technically there could. but if its all arbitrary like it is now then it means very little.

 

[Lukeje]

Organisms rely on organic chemistry and biochemistry for their bodies and what lies within those bodies and all non-low level organisms rely on electrical potentials and neurotransmitters (more biochemistry) to execute their actions and understand the stimuli coming from the environment.

Aah, so we don't need to consume salt (an inorganic chemical) to regulate the water levels in cells? Huh...
There is actually a massive field called 'Bioinorganic Chemistry' that you may have missed.

But we are but Von Neumann machines [http://xkcd.com/387/] anyway.

The critical difference is that the basis for our neurons functioning is not predicated on binary electrical signals like with the circuits of machines; it's based upon a far more complex and nuanced system of receptors, neurotransmitters, and messengers.

You are wrong about that; our neurons do work in binary. They can either be on or off. You may want to look at a topic in AI called 'Neural Networks'.

 

[Labyrinth]

The critical difference is that the basis for our neurons functioning is not predicated on binary electrical signals like with the circuits of machines; it's based upon a far more complex and nuanced system of receptors, neurotransmitters, and messengers.

I'd like to draw your attention to the kingdom Monera (Subdivided)which is single celled organisms such as bacteria. No nervous system involved there, yet we classify them as 'living'.

 

[Lukeydoodly]

Organisms rely on organic chemistry and biochemistry for their bodies and what lies within those bodies and all non-low level organisms rely on electrical potentials and neurotransmitters (more biochemistry) to execute their actions and understand the stimuli coming from the environment.

Do you have an example of a machine which does that?

Lol /thread.