Are the lines between organism and machine becoming blurred?

[Copter400]

Stab your computer. Is it bleeding?

Thought not.

 

[Dommyboy]

Stab your computer. Is it bleeding?

Thought not.

Bleeding is not a strong sign of whether something is alive. You don't go stab amoebas and wait for them to bleed to see if they are alive do you?

 

[Alex_P]

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'.

The simulated neurons in an artificial neural network usually use a smooth output function.

Only perceptrons are strictly "binary" (their output is a step function rather than an S-curve). Perceptrons are not widely used.

-- Alex

 

[theklng]

in the case of transhumanism (the fusion of man and machine), i am a proponent. while i may not think of it as a sort of forced evolution, i do realize that humanity should not miss out if there are ways to enhance either experiences, provide for extended life support or otherwise. i'd like to live 200 years just so i could carry on doing my research.

as for artificial intelligence, we're not there yet. we can force computer programmes to learn, but only in those paths we specify for them. i cannot yet imagine how true machinal AI would look. we're still researching how our own brain works, how consciousness and subconsciousness are intertwined, so i'd wager it will be some hundred years before we breakthrough and give a computer a computerized brain. then again, there's always the option of putting a human brain linked up to a computer, creating something of a middle thing.

biologically, everything in the universe is the same. life is, perhaps, an accident... perhaps it was never supposed to happen. but still, everything is made out of atom, or whatever may be smaller than atoms. though, i have always asked myself a question in this matter, "if you built a human up, atom for atom, would he/she be alive?"

 

[Lukeje]

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'.

The simulated neurons in an artificial neural network usually use a smooth output function.

Only perceptrons are strictly "binary" (their output is a step function rather than an S-curve). Perceptrons are not widely used.

-- Alex

So what you are saying is that neural networks are already an improvement on our nervous systems? (Now if only we had the computational power to run as many simulated neurons as there are neurons in the brain...).

 

[The Lyre]

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

I, uh...what?

I think you'll find both science and philosophy have plenty of definitions of 'life' - Eggo provided you with a concise scientific one.

Every religion, philosophy and their dog has a definition of 'life' - I suppose what you could mean is a correct, complete definition of both the origins and meaning of life, but I fail to understand how this relates to organism vs. machine. Basic science can distinguish between organic and synthetic.

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'.

Re-read his first post;

all non-low level organisms

He already made that distinction - he was not talking about unicellular organisms past the first line.

This argument could be a plausible one in the future, if machines can easily mimic life, but right now the line between organism and machine is still very clear.

The Wikipedia page on Life [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life] has a very clear first paragraph that sums it up nicely.

There is no complete definition of life, as of yet, but there is more than enough to make the distinction between organism and machine.

 

[Copter400]

Stab your computer. Is it bleeding?

Thought not.

Bleeding is not a strong sign of whether something is alive. You don't go stab amoebas and wait for them to bleed to see if they are alive do you?

Bleeding is a pretty good sign something is living, though. Better example:

Does your computer eat? Does it poop? Does it reproduce?

No?

 

[Jharry5]

As processors and microchips become more sophisticated, robots controlled by these things will do so too. Scientists are always looking for a way to create life like Dr. Frankenstein... so in my opinion, it's just a matter of time before that line between organism and machine no longer exists...

 

[Singing Gremlin]

Actually, there is an exact scientific definition of life.

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

I think there are seven requirements something has to have to be considered alive, viruses being interesting because they don't actually fulfil that.

Movement
Reproduction
Sensitivity
Nutrition
Excretion
Respiration
Growth

But that's a pretty base-level definition. There's probably more developed definitions out there.

 

[Alex_P]

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 can simulate an analog system on a digital system, given sufficient capacity.

-- Alex

 

[Alex_P]

So what you are saying is that neural networks are already an improvement on our nervous systems? (Now if only we had the computational power to run as many simulated neurons as there are neurons in the brain...).

No.

To my knowledge, biological neuron activations aren't binary.

-- Alex

 

[TheDean]

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?

well, in fallout 3 there are androids or something and you are sent to kill one, but the poor thing just wanted freedom so i didn't kill him.

 

[Cheesus333]

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?

Funny how you answered your question with a question: thoughts. Machines cannot think, they can only execute sequences as programmed into their heads. Even a supposed AI or 'mind' is still programmed at the end of the day. Living organisms, however, can think. As proven by the way I'm doing so now.

Or something like all the above. I don't know.

 

[Galletea]

I think the lines are becoming increasingly blurred, particularly since cyborgs are now becoming a reality, I believe they created a robot that was powered by a rat's brain, but I may have dreamed it.
Still the definition of life is the only real barrier between the two, since almost all the functions of nature can be reproduced in a machine.

 

[Lukeje]

So what you are saying is that neural networks are already an improvement on our nervous systems? (Now if only we had the computational power to run as many simulated neurons as there are neurons in the brain...).

No.

To my knowledge, biological neuron activations aren't binary.

-- Alex

Ah, sorry what I meant was that while there is a threshold over which the total number of activations in the surrounding area must be greater before the neuron activates, an actual neuron itself is either on or off. (At least to my knowledge...).

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?

Funny how you answered your question with a question: thoughts. Machines cannot think, they can only execute sequences as programmed into their heads. Even a supposed AI or 'mind' is still programmed at the end of the day. Living organisms, however, can think. As proven by the way I'm doing so now.

Or something like all the above. I don't know.

That depends on how much of our minds is due to our genetic code. Yes, we learn things, but a lot of what allows us to 'live' (breathing, digesting, etc.) comes pre-programmed.

 

[axia777]

As soon as sold commercial cybernetic implants become available I am getting some. I am not kidding in the slightest. It is a fact that the science of cybernetics is coming along nicely. In a few generations of the tech wet wired nerves, nano computers in the brain, sub dermal plating, ocular implants, new synthetic organs, and the like will all be a serious reality. Hook me up, I want to go full conversion borg like the Major from Ghost in The Shell. Human bodies suck.