Are the lines between organism and machine becoming blurred?

[Lukeje]

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.

Sodium and chlorine are both biochemical compounds.

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'.

But how they signal on and off is not binary. Sure, they use electrical potentials to communicate with each other, but that's only "fiber to the curb;" after the synapse, it's all chemical and it's all ridiculously complex to a simple binary circuit.

Neural networks still can't even begin to approach the complexity of actual neuronal systems.

Chlorine is most definitely NOT a biochemical compound. Chloride is found in biological organisms, but not chlorine. That is an important distinction. The same with sodium and sodium cations. They are still inorganic though, whatever form they are in.

Synapses can be simulated. As I posted above, the messenger chemicals are released, and when they pass a certain threshold, the next neuron is turned on, etc. This can all be theoretically simulated (albeit not very succesfully in practice at the moment). As Alex P. pointed out to me above, simple binary neurons are actually hardly ever used in neural networks.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

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?

I'm gonna have to agree with that. Machines and organisms may be blurring together from a very simple perspective but they are certainly not similar yet. Until biomechanical machines (machines that are made of organic tissues or made to mimic said tissues) are developed, then machines and life aren't similar.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

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.

Hell Yeah! finally someone that shares my sentiments.

 

[Lukeje]

Chlorine is most definitely NOT a biochemical compound. Chloride is found in biological organisms, but not chlorine. That is an important distinction. The same with sodium and sodium cations. They are still inorganic though, whatever form they are in.

Typo on my part; considering all the ion channel receptors work with inorganic compounds, I don't think my point is rebutted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage-gated_sodium_channel

I never said that NaCl wasn't present, I just said it was Bioinorganic Chemistry, not Biochemistry (at least as I know Biochemistry).

Synapses can be simulated. As I posted above, the messenger chemicals are released, and when they pass a certain threshold, the next neuron is turned on, etc.

That's making the very simplistic assumption that a neuron only has one type of receptor. Nearly all neurons are covered in a multitude of receptors which disinhibit, inhibit, and modulate each other's activity.

All of which can in theory be simulated. There is a misconception that we have to understand something before we can simulate it. this isn't entirely true. We could, given enough computational power, set up a replica of the human brain, and test if our theories are true. We could then use a trial and error methodology to work out how the brain works. It would probably take a long time, but (optimistically) it would take less time than nature did to do the same thing. But this is

• (a)too computationally demanding to be practical
  (b)unnecessary when we have people in many different areas of research striving for the same goal via less 'random' methods

The thread was asking whether we can understand life on a scientific level. I'd say that we're damn close. I'm an optimist in this regard; I believe that computers may not just equal humans, but may actually surpass them at some point in the future.

 

[Alex_P]

As I posted above, the messenger chemicals are released, and when they pass a certain threshold, the next neuron is turned on, etc.

IIRC, the activation threshold is fuzzy. A smooth function rather than a step function, if we're going to use metaphors from ANN.

-- Alex

 

[Alex_P]

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.

O rly? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_learning]

-- Alex

 

[Jark212]

Not even close, perhaps in another ten years, the lines will start to blurr.
But i am still waiting for my super sexy android wife...

 

[Johnn Johnston]

I had to delete all eight paragraphs of my post when I realised the thread title said organism. So, this is plan B:

I define life not as something that can think. Jellyfish do not have self-awareness, yet they are alive. I do not define as being able to recognise surroundings, or as learning. Machines can do both of those. I define it as the cold, hard fact of the division and replication of the being to create more of itself. Not necessarily sex per se, but simple cellular division on an organism would could as life in my books. When humans can make a replicating cell, we have created life and can all put on those thinking-about-the-philosophical-implication hats I have stored up for such an occasion.

 

[Vigormortis]

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'.

Aw, you beat me to the punch. Anyway, thanks for clarifying. I probably should have addressed that point in my original post as I later realized someone would have inevitably brought it up. I'd also like to add that, even if one would consider the processes neurons go through to be more complicated than simply binary states, the advent of quantum computing will make circuitry behave just like our neurons. With each circuit being able to exist in multiple quantum states, they can be, for example, 20% on and 80% off.

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.

Well, let's see. Machines fulfill many of your set requirements.
Movement - I'm pretty sure this one is a no-brainer. Robots anyone?

Reproduction - We've had machines building machines for decades. Look at the automotive industry.

Sensitivity - We have cameras which are light sensitive, microphones that are sound sensitive, and a plethora of other devices that perceive and react to many of the same stimuli we do.

Nutrition - By this I'm assuming you mean consumption, but I ask you, what is the real difference between us eating food and a machine running on electricity? We inevitably turn that food into a more pure energy form, such as electricity, so that our bodies can function. Without it, we die and do nothing. Machines are no different.

Excretion - This will differ from machine to machine, as it does from organism to organism, but the principle is the same. We consume energy and excrete waste product. Machines consume energy and, in many cases, excrete byproducts such as heat. It's all still nothing more than energy conversion.

Respiration - This one is a bit of a stretch as many species don't breathe like we do, if at all. Besides, respiration is nothing more than consumption, which I covered above. So this one really doesn't count. Besides, jet engines breathe for all intents and purposes, so are they alive?

Growth - This one is a bit of a tough one, but isn't a definitive difference. There are organism that do not grow, only divide and multiply. However, most species on this planet do grow in one way or another, but then, so do calcium deposits in caves, but they're not alive. That said, there are nano-machines being developed that can, in essence, grow. They consume nearby materials and convert them into new "components" which are attached to the outer layers of the machine. Seeing as this is the very definition of growth (also considering growth is nothing more than dividing cells multiplying over and over), it seems that the one definition that would distinguish machines from living beings is quickly becoming a moot point.

 

[Vigormortis]

The thread was asking whether we can understand life on a scientific level. I'd say that we're damn close. I'm an optimist in this regard; I believe that computers may not just equal humans, but may actually surpass them at some point in the future.

Ah. The fabled "Singularity" of our species. Scientists, authors, and even theologians have been theorizing on the idea that one day our technology will surpass us. Many have even gone so far as to start warning of a "doom and gloom" scenario in which we become obsolete and machines continue on without us as we fall backward in development. This never made sense to me. For one, it will be a long, long time before our technology gets to that point, if ever, and when/if it does we'll have an opportunity to merge ourselves with our technology to advance ourselves beyond what nature will allow. There's always this idea that when a machine becomes self-aware it will immediately decide to kill all humans. I guess it can be attributed to basic human paranoia. Why does no one consider that once we start creating machines that are self-aware, they may very well be just like us. Good, bad, incompetent, intelligent, and just as fallible. For a long time (and even today), many people think humans are the only creatures with emotions or personalities. Having 2 cats and a dog I can tell you that each one sure as hell has it's own personality. One is demanding, one is sly, and the other is a dope exuding the whole "ignorance is bliss" mantra. Why would self-aware machines be any different?

 

[Lukeje]

Living things respire, I am not aware that machines do this.

Aah, respiration. The task of turning sugars into 0=C=O and H-O-H, with the release of energy. Wait a minute; aren't biofuels an example of how we get machines to 'respire'? We take starch (plant's sugar storage polymer), convert it into bioethanol, and then use it to run cars, etc. Is this not just respiration by another name?

 

[mackemsniper]

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?

Science can perfectly well define 'life', thanks. Look up the 'Characteristics of Life', it's basic biology one learns at high school.

Machines can not feed, reproduce, or grow. Merely three of the prerequisites.

 

[Lukeje]

It would be respiration by another name if it wasn't us doing all of it.

We are but a robot's mitochondria...

 

[GothmogII]

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?

Well...if you had the chance to be able to give up those things, wouldn't you? I mean...as is, respiration, excretion etc. serve a purpose, you need to breathe, you need to get rid of waste products lest they become toxic.. However, wouldn't it be better to do away with them? I mean..what exactly does having to sit on a porcelain seat every other week add to the human experience?

On computers as thinking beings...I'm not sure on the idea. I think we should be thinking less on how such a thing would not be -organic- life, and use a different definition, that it would be -technological- life. That is, it would essentially have similar characteristics to a human mind in terms of thought processes, but possibly better.

Strangely enough...the thought of making something like that is an odd one...I mean, -why- would anyone want to make something with all the failings of a human mind? Or, even with none of the failings, but one so much greater that it falls to little more than a massive egotistical monster. I suppose, they would, just because they can, or to advance science. Still...I can see the growth of Artificial intelligence most definitely in the future at least, those Japanese robots? The automatic vacumn cleaners? Those are toys, expensive toys, but toys nonetheless, but, they're getting better, and someday, they're going to make something worse than the sentient robot:

The working robot. How is that worse? Think about it, a machine, maybe humanoid, maybe not, that can do, anything, capable of replacing the entire human workforce. -That- is a scary thought. What do you think will happen to a human race that suddenly has too much time on it's hands?