DNA, Genes. On several posts I’ve tried to communicate to you that INFORMATION EXISTS - I’m not just being metaphorical. It can be measured, quantified, amplified, transduced sent and received. It exists every bit as much as a bricks, trees, dogs, 247 pennies, etc. exist.
What difference does it make? Are you now arguing that humans will never be able to reproduce the defining functions of ANY life forms in robots?
We can probably do that now. We could build robots that act and function the same way simple life forms do. How hard could it be to build an artificial sponge, really?
Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. I fail to see how that’s inconsistent with it being artificial. I used the concept just fine.
But, even if there is an inconsistency, you make no attempt at showing that it exists.
We’re debating whether life can be artificial, and your big argument in favor of your position is that using the phrase “artificial life” is a stolen concept because if something is alive, it’s not artificial.
I’m sorry for using words with precise meaning. You may resume your metaphorical discussion without me.
If and when man discovers how to rearrange inanimate matter into animate matter - that would be an instance of the man made rather than the metaphysically given.
“Information” refers to knowledge and “knowledge” exists only in our minds (or some conscious mind, somewhere). There are measurable things that exist, and there are things which we can inform ourselves of, but to say that “information exists” in any literal sense could only refer to knowledge without a knower.
“Life” has multiple layers of meaning, which are being used interchangeably without the slightest attention.
“Living” as in moving around, eating, reproducing; life as a process of self-generated action does not apply to most of the things that biologists study. Roombas, on the other hand, do demonstrate self-generated action without a single biological function (and without the slightest bit of awareness, either), and it’s inescapably obvious that their existence is not metaphysically given; they do not grow on trees.
I ask for a definition of biological life, by the way, as a rhetorical point; all of the best and brightest minds in that field have yet to do so, which should give you a few moments’ pause before you begin to syllogize with it.
“Information exists” is a reification. To deny that artificial entities can engage in “life” in its philosophical sense is both arbitrary and in directly demonstrable contradiction to reality.
You’re wrong and I’m tired of being polite about it.
“Information” refers to knowledge and “knowledge” exists only in our minds (or some conscious mind, somewhere). There are measurable things that exist, and there are things which we can inform ourselves of, but to say that “information exists” in any literal sense could only refer to knowledge without a knower.
<snip>
“Information exists” is a reification. To deny that artificial entities can engage in “life” in its philosophical sense is both arbitrary and in directly demonstrable contradiction to reality.
You’re wrong and I’m tired of being polite about it.
b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects.
‘Communicated,’ in this definition, comes across to me as a synonym or metaphor of a causal relationship.
In general, I try to avoid using these terms in this context.
“Life” has multiple layers of meaning, which are being used interchangeably without the slightest attention.
“Living” as in moving around, eating, reproducing; life as a process of self-generated action does not apply to most of the things that biologists study. Roombas, on the other hand, do demonstrate self-generated action without a single biological function (and without the slightest bit of awareness, either), and it’s inescapably obvious that their existence is not metaphysically given; they do not grow on trees.
I ask for a definition of biological life, by the way, as a rhetorical point; all of the best and brightest minds in that field have yet to do so, which should give you a few moments’ pause before you begin to syllogize with it.
Restating my earlier post, if and when man discovers how to rearrange inanimate matter into a living, moving around, eating, reproducing entity - would it be man-made, or metaphysically given?
Restating my earlier post, if and when man discovers how to rearrange inanimate matter into a living, moving around, eating, reproducing entity - would it be man-made, or metaphysically given?
“Information” refers to knowledge and “knowledge” exists only in our minds (or some conscious mind, somewhere).
If a physicist handed you a book that he wrote, full of very advanced mathematics, would you understand it? If the physicist handed the same book to a fellow physicist, would he understand it?
Information and knowledge are not the same thing.
Information Theoryis real. That you don’t know about it is irrelevant. The fact that you may not even be capable of understanding it is irrelevant. It’s a billion dollar industry and is responsible for, not only the computer and internet that you are using, but most of the major advances that we’ve made in the last 70 years. It’s governed by the same laws of Thermodynamics.
Many in the 1950’s anticipated that the future would be the Atomic Age with unlimited access to cheap power.
What happened is that we developed the Information Age, with a virtual unlimited access to information.
Edit: The reason I approached this dialog incrementally is because it’s evident that you don’t have an engineering background and I was trying to explain it in steps. If you feel this is a waste of time, so be it.
Just in case your curious, Information Theory (and the computer you are using) arose from a study of Cryptography. It’s not a coincidence that many of the mathematicians employed by the Government in WW II, to develop cryptic codes, were also instrumental in the development of binary computers (i.,e. what you are using).
What I’ve been interested in, the last couple of months, is what Objectivist Epistemology might contribute to Information Theory.
What I’ve been interested in, the last couple of months, is what Objectivist Epistemology might contribute to Information Theory.
I am actually relatively familiar with information theory; at least enough to recognize the validity of its basis (which is sound). Neither do I consider it irrelevant to these matters. As a matter of fact, as the foundation of the quantification of knowledge itself, I think that Information Theory will ultimately provide us with the means of building any true AI.
But the fact remains that “knowledge” requires a knower.
If you were using “information” to mean something else entirely then I would withdraw my objection, except to say that I find such terminology misleading (specifically for the aforementioned reason). If you mean things in reality which can be quantified then “pattern” would be clearer and more precise.
This reminds me of the scene in the movie I, Robot where Will Smith’s character encounters a car accident and a robot comes to rescue him. Throughout the movie they show you bits of the whole scene until showing it completely. Once the scene was shown the audience would see that he said to save her. Now, I don’t recall whether he meant his couple or if he meant the female driver in the other car. With this being said, the robot saves him instead of following his instructions and saving the other human. Now, reading this is interesting because at first the robot has no problem of saving the human (proxy), but when another human is introduced the robot fails to decide which to save or if to save both. Basically another problem would be that if robots were advanced as in the movie I, Robot, would they follow the instructions given to them of saving the other person or would they save the person giving the instructions instead? This is a mere question to the thousands of question we have regarding robots and artificial intelligence, but there’s one thing we have to understand, even when we think we are prepared to make robots act like humans, with emotions, with actions like humans , with thoughts, etc, we are not. We never know what would happen in the beginning and with all these movies, games and series, presenting a fictitious world where robots are fully capable is just funny to me because in the real world it’s going to be very different.
The robot will do what it has been programmed to do. Nothing more nothing less. If it is unable to decide which human proxy to save, that it is because the programmer either failed to take that possibility into account, or the design was deliberate.
Cool. Let’s program one to make decisions on its own.
I think you’ve misunderstood me, but maybe I wasn’t being clear.
If the robot is unable to make a decision in certain test cases, then its decision algorithm is flawed in some way, maybe just because the programmer didn’t care what happens in those cases or because the robot was deliberately designed to more or less ignore them.