lindagarrette Posted April 16, 2005 Report Share Posted April 16, 2005 Wrong; life is not the product of evolution. Evolution is caused by the process of living, not the other way around. Actually, evolution is caused by successful mitochondrial DMA mutation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted April 17, 2005 Report Share Posted April 17, 2005 Actually, evolution is caused by successful mitochondrial DMA mutation. How would mitochondrial DNA mutate if it wasn't part of a life form first? And if you want to call it some "primary" form of life, it would still be a form of life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted April 17, 2005 Report Share Posted April 17, 2005 How would mitochondrial DNA mutate if it wasn't part of a life form first? And if you want to call it some "primary" form of life, it would still be a form of life. Mitrochondrial DNA did not exist in the first life form, prokaryotes. (Life began from a non-life form.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomL Posted April 17, 2005 Report Share Posted April 17, 2005 ...first life form, prokaryotes. (Life began from a non-life form.) If prokaryotes are the first life form, what is the first non-life form referenced here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal Posted April 17, 2005 Report Share Posted April 17, 2005 How would mitochondrial DNA mutate if it wasn't part of a life form first? And if you want to call it some "primary" form of life, it would still be a form of life. There's no sharp dividing line between living and non-living entities at this level (if you think there is one, what is it?). Whether or not you want to class things like viruses and the like as 'living' is fairly arbitrary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrs Posted April 18, 2005 Report Share Posted April 18, 2005 TomL: You said "Evolution is caused by the process of living, not the other way around.". I guess that I was not clear enough. Let me try again. The nature of living organisms today is largely shaped by the process of evolution by natural selection. The ancestors of today's organisms have had to survive and reproduce over a period of about four billion years. This selection (screening) is responsible for the fact that the attributes of today's organisms are so well adapted for their survival and reproduction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomL Posted April 18, 2005 Report Share Posted April 18, 2005 TomL: You said "Evolution is caused by the process of living, not the other way around.". I guess that I was not clear enough. Let me try again. I agree completely with your statement. But if you mean to imply that biological life qua life depends on evolution, then I'll say: which came first? Life, or evolution? How can something non-living evolve? While it is true that evolution improves life, it does not create it. The biomechanical processes of an organism do that on their own. It is only a living organism which can evolve; thus, something must be alive first -- only then can evolution take place. What you said before which I disgree with is "Life is the product of evolution." Did you really mean to say "Living organisms are improved by evolution"? The organisms which evolve are not the same concept as the life they possess, and they cannot evolve if they are not first alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenstauffer Posted April 18, 2005 Report Share Posted April 18, 2005 Here is my take on the relationship between life and evolution. I believe that the first objects on this planet to be subject to the forces of evolution were simple molecules -- hardy more interesting than rust. The only property I am confident to say they possesed was self-replication. Thus began darwinism, natural selection, evolution, et al. It would be difficult to ascribe the concept of life (a capacity for self generated, goal-directed action) to these self-replicators. Are they alive? I would venture to guess that the biologist and the philosopher would disagree. But, I do believe that evolution will tend to transform these simple objects into full-fledged living entities that we all would agree were alive. So evolution may occur for billions of years without anything we might call life. But I would say that evolution is progressive, and it will tend to create life from non-life. Is evolution required for life? I cannot think of any process that more beautifully explains how life on this planet emerged, but it may be the case that another processes is operating on some planet causing the creation of complex entities (that want to sustain themselves). In conclusion, my views are: 1. Evolution depends on self-replicating objects, but does not require life. 2. Evolution is progressive and will tend to cause life to come into existance from non-living matter. 3. Another undiscovered process may exist that creates life, so it need not be an absolute that evolution is required to create life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrs Posted April 19, 2005 Report Share Posted April 19, 2005 TomL: You said "... which came first? Life, or evolution? How can something non-living evolve?". This is like "Which came first? The chicken or the chicken-egg?". Personally, I define "life" as something which participates in evolution. Something must be alive to evolve, but life makes no sense without evolution. I do not know how life began. I accept your point that "... something must be alive first -- only then can evolution take place.". But I cannot imagine what a living being would be like which had not been shaped by evolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iakeo Posted April 19, 2005 Report Share Posted April 19, 2005 If a computer could be programmed to be consciouss, could it be called alive? If it could choose its values, acchieve them, if it could own property, earn it and make other consciouss computers, should we call it alive and grant it individual rights? Anything with "consciousness" is alive, and if it has human-like "consciousness" then it inherently has the rights of any other human. But, could you please define "consciousness" (and "human consciousness") in this context? A machine is merely a crystalization of concepts of a conscious being in utter service to some conscious being. NO machine can be conscious, because if it were it would no longer be a machine. It would be a being. Does "programming consciousness" mean you know what consciousness is, and can instill it into some "thing" that can use this quality? What if you tried to instill full human consciousness into a ludicrously inadequate "machine"? Would this be the equivalent of torture? Creating beings sounds like a wonderfully exciting occupation. Let's see what you can come up with..!! -Iakeo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
source Posted April 23, 2005 Report Share Posted April 23, 2005 (edited) Anything with "consciousness" is alive, and if it has human-like "consciousness" then it inherently has the rights of any other human. But, could you please define "consciousness" (and "human consciousness") in this context? A machine is merely a crystalization of concepts of a conscious being in utter service to some conscious being. NO machine can be conscious, because if it were it would no longer be a machine. It would be a being. Does "programming consciousness" mean you know what consciousness is, and can instill it into some "thing" that can use this quality? I don't know if you noticed, but this was posted almost a year ago. Since then I learned a lot about both Objectivism and computers. However, my understanding of "consciousness" has remained unchanged - I understand it only on the perceptual level. I can introspect and say "This is consciousness." But, I don't understand it on a conceptual level. I don't know how consciousness "springs out" from the neural pathways of my brain, the cells of my body and from my senses. I cannot understand that and therefore I cannot program it. The best thing I CAN do, however, is to make out a very rough plan of how I could program a machine to mimick the actions of a conscious being. While to someone with limited knowledge about machines it may seem aware of the world, it would in fact still be merely a machine executing preprogrammed commands without understanding why and/or how (and without the ability to understand). That in fact is one of the most elusive things to grasp about consciousness - that it is able to understand something. How can one make a computer say "ah-ha!" and mean it? What if you tried to instill full human consciousness into a ludicrously inadequate "machine"? Would this be the equivalent of torture? Assuming that there was an installation disk for that, the answer would be no. Consciousness would only be as fast as the medium it is on. Let's take a human being as an example. A microsecond is to a human being something that he cannot grasp on a perceptual level. It is too short a period of time to make something of it. However, a lot of things can happen in a microsecond. 1.6 GHz computer can make 1600 simple calculations at maximum, in a microsecond. That's a lot of operations in a period of time shorter than is a blink of an eye. We are not aware of it. Similarly, the result of putting a complex abovementioned program on a slow computer, would result in that this consciousness would perform much slower. What is to it "a blink of an eye" to us might be seconds, minutes, days, weeks, or more. Edited to correct some grammar. Edited April 23, 2005 by source Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franklin Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 (edited) Short answer: yes and no. Long answer: Yes, it is conceivable that a non-biological entity could qualify as a person, and if it did, then it would have rights. However, you've radically over-simplified the problem. A conscious artifact would be as dissimiliar as can be from computers as we know them today. So, "if you could program a computer to be conscious"--stop right there; you can't. That's like saying, "if you could ride a tricycle naked up Mt. Everest, would you be able to see my house from up there?" Isaac http://isaac.beigetower.org What is it about computers, as they exist on general principle today and not with respect to specific processing power, that would stop them from achieving consciousness? At the very least, let's say we make computers 1,000,000,000 times more powerful than the current super computer (which may be possible in the distant future). We than give it a program which is intended to predict the behaviour of a particular individual's nuerological patterns. We than say, "act as this person would". Wouldn't that constitute consciousness (since we are all good monists here, I hope). Edited August 12, 2005 by Franklin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franklin Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 (edited) The devil's advocate in me, wants to reply thusly, One more idea just occurred to me: FLYING was caused through evolution as a means of survival. Thus "life" is at the very root of causation of "FLIGHT". It is thus quite possible than any machine, even given the exact same physiological processes present in WINGS, may not become AIRBORNE. The reason is that it will not need FLIGHT in order to "survive", since it isn't alive and can't use its FLIGHT to further its own life. I am not certain this is true. I think you might be overloading the notion of cause here. I don't know whether you have read Aristotle's metaphysics but he establishes a hierarchy of causality. There is a difference between final cause and efficent (or possibly also here) formal cause. If it had wings and the formal and efficent causes of a bird's flight it would still fly evening if the flight didn't have the final cause of enabling life. Edited August 12, 2005 by Franklin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 What is it about computers, as they exist on general principle today and not with respect to specific processing power, that would stop them from achieving consciousness? At the very least, let's say we make computers 1,000,000,000 times more powerful than the current super computer (which may be possible in the distant future).Most of that processing power will be wasted on making the OS more bubbly. 256-bit color; a terapixel display; constant checking with HQ in Redmond for updates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzcanadian Posted September 20, 2005 Report Share Posted September 20, 2005 We are talking about the "subjective" nature of consciousness here, right? Aka, "hard problem"? What evidence is there that a computer could not simulate the behaviour of a human brain in its entirity? Isn't that the materialist viewpoint? How does Objectivism deal with the "hard problem" of consciousness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrocktor Posted September 20, 2005 Report Share Posted September 20, 2005 Some thoughts: Can there be consciousness without life? What is life? Kenstauffer used the following definition: "self generated, goal oriented action". The definition is sufficient for my purposes here, I will use it. What is consciousness? I do not have a good definition to use, though self awareness and volition are certainly ingredients, still this will not significantly undermine the reasoning. The first proposition is: 1. Consciousness requires a physical medium. Consciousness implies means to aquire, process and store information. This can only be achieved through some physical mean. I guess basically I'm re-affirming that existance exists here. 2. Any physical medium is ephemeral. Matter is indestructible, but order is not. In order to posess consciousness, the physical medium requires order and this order is destructible. These two propositions basically determine that an immortal consciousness is not possible. Now, it is reasonable that something that is conscious will act - within its capability - in self preservation. Self preservation is necessary because its physical medium cannot be indestructible. Volitional goal oriented action is our definition of life, so consciousness would imply life. Can a computer be conscious? It is apparent that a computer executing a static program cannot be conscious. A static program would imply repeatability of reactions, and this nullifies volition. On the other hand, should the program have the capability to change itself, there is no self evident reason why a computer could not become conscious. To deny this flies in the face of evolution as a theory for the origin of humanity. If random permutations of chemicals are capable of ultimately becoming conscious, why should random permutations of computer code not be? The "immortality" argument is absurd, a computer is not indestructible. To argue that consciousness is inextricably linked with biology is fallacious, as has been pointed out. That consciousness is inextricably linked to life seems reasonable, as I tried to demonstrate above. mrocktor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrocktor Posted September 20, 2005 Report Share Posted September 20, 2005 I just read over the thread and have some comments: "Life" comes down to this: lock a cat and a robot in separate rooms. Come back one year later and what do you find? A decaying pile of yuck that was once the cat. It has died since it was unable to obtain the materials needed to sustain its life. The robot, on the other hand, looks just as good as ever. Conclusion: a cat and a robot are different in a fundamental way--one is alive the other is not. This is fallacious. Come back in ten years and you will find a decayed pile of goo and a decayed pile of metal and plastic. I also am getting tired of fighting over an issue that is made abundantly clear in so many places in the Objectivist corpus. Seeing that Miss Rand used the example of a robot to disprove the position that you insist upon, amagi, maybe you can show us what we are misunderstanding here. I, for one, would see this as a breath of fresh air as it would turn the discussion to the philosophy of Objectivism which is, after all, the purpose of this BBS. Rand's robot is indestructible. No real robot is indestructible, this is the misunderstanding. Amagi, I have never argued that man could not synthesize life in some form. I have been arguing that only living organisms are and can be conscious. (...) If we someday create something that has the essential characteristics of life, then I agree that consciousness is possible to it. But it would be alive and this is what I have been arguing all along. In this we agree entirely, a conscious robot must be alive. Note that this does not mean it has to be biological. For something to possess consciousness it must replicate, say, a nervous system to a sufficient degree. A simulation on a computer screen, no matter how complex and how well it models the causal powers of the brain, will never lead to consciousness. SheepSIM1.0 is not really a sheep. Dolly is a sheep. Just a simple point. You assume that the only way to produce consciousness is replicating the one means we know: the human nervous system. I don't see why this assumption should be granted. A simulation on a computer screen, if it models the causal powers of the brain well enough to by its own initiative type out "Please don't format me Mr. Bowzer", is by any plausible definition conscious <b>and</b> alive. mrocktor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted September 20, 2005 Report Share Posted September 20, 2005 (edited) I must say that I share mrocktor's view on this. If we can model what's going on in a human being exactly with a robot we have to call that robot alive - and concious. You said that 'There is no information in this world' and I agree. There is only data. What makes it information is its meaning to us (or another conciousness). But this conciousness must be a functional property of our body. And it must be possible to model this functional property by modeling the body that possesses it. I still don't see how we could have conciousness without attributing it to the physical entity that produces it. And this 'creation of conciousness' must be a physical process (to be real). Everything else would mean some sort of mind-body-split with the mind not having something to do with the body (and the real world). I still don't understand what's wrong with the idea that a computer processes information. If that computer correctly models the workings of the human brain, then it possesses conciousness and is therefore capable of processing information. I cannot see where (and how) you make that crucial distiction between data manipulation (which happens inside the brain) and conciousness. Is there a gap? Maybe I misunderstood you completely, if so, please correct me and don't be angry. Sometimes I'm a little slow. If I'm wrong somewhere, I'm curious to find out. Edited September 20, 2005 by Felix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPowersDC Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 If we can model what's going on in a human being exactly with a robot we have to call that robot alive - and concious. That may not be possible. The key thing to remember is that every entity has a specific identity. It is what it is and behaves a certain way under certain conditions. It is not enough to model something, one has to duplicate the relevant properties of the actual entity. The entities that make up our brains have specific properties, and these properties give rise to the property of conciousness. If we wanted to create a man-made device that was concious, we would have to find out the relevant properties of the stuff our brains are made of that give rise to conciousness, and then try to find a way to duplicate them by using actual entities, not computer models of entities. It might be that the entities that make up our brains are the only ones with the necessary properties. For example, if we wanted to make something that was not gold but that had the same density, color, maleability, and conductivity of gold, we might be out of luck! However, if it is true that there are other materials besides brain matter that we could assemble which would have the properties necessary to give rise to conciousness, then we could build a man-made concious entity. It would be a man-made brain; it would probably bare no resemblance to a computer, and it would not be a "model". To put it another way, if one wanted to invent something that has the high transparency property of crystal, one couldn't use a computer to simply model crystal, one would have to invent an actual entity such as acrylic. A computer model might help you in the design phase, but your model would not be transparent, only the final manufactured product would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 That may not be possible. The key thing to remember is that every entity has a specific identity. It is what it is and behaves a certain way under certain conditions. It is not enough to model something, one has to duplicate the relevant properties of the actual entity. That's what I said. That's what modeling completely means. And remember that you said relevant. ... It would be a man-made brain; it would probably bare no resemblance to a computer, and it would not be a "model". To put it another way, if one wanted to invent something that has the high transparency property of crystal, one couldn't use a computer to simply model crystal, one would have to invent an actual entity such as acrylic. A computer model might help you in the design phase, but your model would not be transparent, only the final manufactured product would be. That's because the main property of crystal is transparency. The main property of a brain is conciousness. If we model the brain completely, i.e. duplicate the brain, we have created conciousness. It may not be gooey and slimy, but it has all the relevant properties. How it looks like doesn't matter. What matters is: We can find out the relevant properties of the brain. We can model them completely (duplicate them). Therefore we can build something that possesses conciousness. This "The model is as good as the real thing" gave rise to digital signal processing. People modeled what happened inside of electric circuits and then thought: Hey, our model is just as fine, why go through the hassle of rebuilding the circuit. We just use the model. I think that we can do the same with the human brain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrocktor Posted September 26, 2005 Report Share Posted September 26, 2005 Although it is hardly a proper philosophical formulation this is what gives me reassurance that non-biological life is possible: If random combinations of chemicals are capable of generating consciouness, it is reasonable to assume that random combinations of computer code could do so as well. mrocktor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrs Posted September 27, 2005 Report Share Posted September 27, 2005 If random combinations of chemicals are capable of generating consciousness, it is reasonable to assume that random combinations of computer code could do so as well. Chemical life is far from random. Mutations may be random, but natural selection definitely is not random. Do you consider computer viruses to be life? Even if they are, they are still far from being conscious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAS Posted September 27, 2005 Report Share Posted September 27, 2005 Chemical life is far from random.First, chemicals aren't alive, I believe what mrocktor was referencing was the random COH groups that came together to form simple organic chemicals which came together to form more complex organic chemicals which came together to form the first single celled organisms, which... need I go on? The point is, somewhere between free carbon, oxygen and hydrogen atoms and the first single celled bacteria, life formed... everything before life 'formed' was random and everything after was goal directed. And if those chemicals could randomly combine in nature, then what is to say they couldn't combine in a lab, or a simulation on a computer... Do you consider computer viruses to be life? Even if they are, they are still far from being conscious. I think they're a good simulation of life, that programmers modeled after life to get a desired effect (spreading). note: the above is my best understanding based on high school level biology and chemistry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrocktor Posted September 27, 2005 Report Share Posted September 27, 2005 Chemical life is far from random. Mutations may be random, but natural selection definitely is not random. Do you consider computer viruses to be life? Even if they are, they are still far from being conscious. Good points. Natural selection has a random part (differentiation by mutation) and a non random part (the survival of the fittest). Mental experiment, assume we write a simple program and execute it on a computer. The program has two features: it randomly rewrites its code (small parts each time) and it makes one copy of itself each time it successfuly executes. Now, it should be obvious what I'm getting at. If we start this program, it will "evolve" in every sense of the word. In a non-infinite memory scenario, eventually programs will compete for memory. Those that are most effective (execute quickly, are insensitive to small adverse changes in the code) will become dominant. Of course actually setting up an experiment of non-infinite scale that does not lead to a bunch of "dead" programs may not be feasible at the moment (we are after all trying to reproduce quadrillions of molecules interacting over billions of years to generate life), but I see no intrinsic limitation that would make it impossible. Todays computer viruses are far from biological viruses on a "life" scale, though regular viruses' life iteself is debated. The computer viruses capable of mutation still mutate according to a program, should a randomly mutating computer virus be constructed, it might not "work" but it sure as hell would be a lot closer to life. mrocktor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted September 27, 2005 Report Share Posted September 27, 2005 Good points. Natural selection has a random part (differentiation by mutation) and a non random part (the survival of the fittest). Mental experiment, assume we write a simple program and execute it on a computer. The program has two features: it randomly rewrites its code (small parts each time) and it makes one copy of itself each time it successfuly executes. Now, it should be obvious what I'm getting at. If we start this program, it will "evolve" in every sense of the word. In a non-infinite memory scenario, eventually programs will compete for memory. Those that are most effective (execute quickly, are insensitive to small adverse changes in the code) will become dominant. mrocktor There are programs that do just that. This is called genetic algorithm and it works fine. Just look here for more. There is even a variant of this called 'Core Wars' where programs compete for memory and processor time. I read about this in Steven Levy's wonderful book Artificial life. To anyone interested, it gives a good overview on the entire subject and is a wonderful read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.