Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

xdert t1_irm2v0w wrote

Reply to comment by Shadpool in What lifeform has the shortest genetic sequence? by teafuck

> changing, evolving, mutating, and adapting.

Then you run into the problem what the strict definitions of these are. Are ideas alive? What about culture? Is a company alive? All of these fit your description in my opinion.

141

KanadaKid19 t1_irn7s60 wrote

Or how about a puddle of mud? It might grow, split, freeze or dry and crack, eat from the dirt and water in its environment, etc.

25

dodexahedron t1_irng551 wrote

Was this sarcasm? Because, if not, a puddle has things done to it. It can't do anything by itself except exist.

15

KanadaKid19 t1_irniu9h wrote

I completely agree, however that wasn’t in the criteria I was rebutting. A puddle is absolutely not alive.

If you want something a little closer to actively consuming its environment, how about a crystal?

8

Longjumping_Youth281 t1_irrnru6 wrote

I mean what about a prion? Doesn't that kind of do what viruses do except on a much simpler scale? In other words it forces the replication of itself due to how its chemicals are composed and arranged.

Viruses also kind of do the same thing due to the arrangement of the chemicals they force the reproduction of themselves, just on a much more complex scale.

That's how I think of viruses at least. I mean I'm coming from a non science background so you know I don't exactly know what I'm talking about here but to me they seem like just an arrangement of chemicals that Force the reproduction of themselves when they come into contact with certain cells.

It's definitely a weird gray area though and does not neatly fit into the constructs that we have created

1

Light01 t1_irnazpz wrote

Non sense, you're comparing something having physical effects and physically existing with a metaphysical concept.

You're like making a comparison of two things that are fundamentally different. I get the idea that they could be seen as similar per se, but let's not get carried away, viruses are something you can interact with, whether it be alive or not, there's still a reasonable doubt, whereas even if you ended up saying they are living things, there would still be no doubts about metaphysical concepts being alive.

9

gingerninja300 t1_irng98i wrote

That's a perfectly valid way to think about it, but just curious, what would you say about a computer program that has achieved sentience?

It could replicate itself across many machines, and even use machines to create more machines for it's duplicates to occupy, and it could certainly evolve and change over time.

But a computer program isn't really a physical thing -- it's fundamentally just information, and it could be represented on hardware in many many different ways.

So would such a hypothetical sentient AI be "alive" in your eyes?

4

willywalloo t1_irqi8mh wrote

This opens up the definition of life, only available to us last century as the first time in billions of years.

The idea that something that has no mass (minimal mass, exists as electrons) but requires a computing structure, could be life.

Is that equivalent to humans! The only difference between a dead human and one that is alive is electricity, and proper chemical functions and a computing structure.

From this point on our civilization will redefine life as it finds new versions of it beyond our planet.

3

Light01 t1_irnlmcx wrote

Purely sentients being couldn't be considered alive unless they find a way to connect with the physical world and with the same intricacies. But for a robot capable of awareness and interacting with people, wouldn't it check both fundamentals to be alive ? Having a functional corpse, having a functional mind.

To me a program becomes sentient the moment it starts being truly aware of its surrounding (and not because you told him what to be aware of), so far, I think the best we do is deep learning, and this is still far from being adequate to be called alive, we're still just scratchings the learning processes.

Shortly: an A.I could be alive if it checks all the prerequisites, and would be alive for sure if it checks all the possible criteria within a classification (not sure if there's one for life, but I was thinking of language with the classification of Hockett as an example.)

1

CTH2004 t1_irofoyz wrote

yes. The program, that's the "conscisness". But, "replicate itself across many maches, and even use machines to create mor machines". now it is definitly effecting the world. Even if you want to say it doesn't have a "soul" and shouldn't have "rights" (It should), it is still alive.

1

physics515 t1_irnlxpq wrote

You could make the argument no, by saying that they are not alive but made up of collection of living organisms, but by that definition you and I are not alive. Which is the idea I'm partial to. Only singular organism are alive and everything else is structures built on top of that

2

CTH2004 t1_irofc1n wrote

>Then you run into the problem what the strict definitions of these are. Are ideas alive? What about culture? Is a company alive? All of these fit your description in my opinion.

In a way, yes. But, that's the social sciences... I stay away from those, it's a rabbit hole that distracts from the rabbit hole I like!

1

willywalloo t1_irqfmpu wrote

In todays definition, I imagine life to be a physically cohesive structure that can have a taxonomic genus. This involves chemical processes that include procreation, self-preservation, a successful way for surviving an environment. Now this definition is for everything before this century, with billions of years of biological “robots”. An unfathomable amount of time we can’t comprehend, yet in some very distant ways we can make sense and find common ground on why the first cells did what they did.

Going forward into our time now, we can open up the ideas of life a bit broader. It’s an artists paintbrush from here as we begin to closely replicate consciousness and sentience, with the other aspects of life following.

It is the case usually on earth that talking about a new species doesn’t preclude that for one species to necessarily live all others have to die. The answer has been always a foundation of coexistence with some that win more than others.

For myself calling a company a life form only fits aspects of a neural network making itself smarter or worse, but a company is a macro life-form at best, where you can remove parts within itself and they can survive on their own. This is equivalent to a family of life forms which is a popular structure in nature. When you are together, you can be more powerful than the individual.

1

willywalloo t1_irqgk1c wrote

I was trying to imagine an odd life-form that could be one that could theoretically span the life of the universe for some mental gymnastics.

And this is where things start to get weird for myself in my own conclusions. But humans are weird, and fun. So I go.

The life-form would have to be present today, somewhere in space time.

It would have to be physical because of my own requirements.

From our perspective and in my opinion it’s time would pass orders of magnitude more slowly than ours and therefore would not change much.

Something I kind of liked to fathom — of the oldest things we know: are rocks. They will outlast the stars, our planet and technically our version of life. They aren’t biological, but for me it allows my mind to not be as rigid about what life maybe should we begin leaving earth as a species.

If I was to develop something that would be able to last trillions of years based on research, it would be a life form that would have a lot in common with a rock, it would be interesting to see if we can survive into the next big bang, something that may or may not have ever been done before.

1

Jonnny t1_irro1gf wrote

I thought the scientific list for being deemed life included having a metabolism. Do viruses even have a metabolism in any sense?

1

Ksradrik t1_irnas6c wrote

I dont think objects apply by themselves if they are part of, or contain lifeforms, which are actually responsible for their evolution.

I also wouldnt count objects specifically created by other lifeforms if they are the sole reason for their ability evolve.

(Eg, a manufactured bacteria would still count as life since it could evolve even by itself, just not in the specific ways we wanted it to, but an AI and everything controlled/manufactured by it would not, except for aforementioned bacteria-likes)

0

the_red_scimitar t1_irny5bj wrote

Well, unfortunately that approach, without limits, could disqualify bacteria, viruses, and everything made out of cells of any kind, because every cell is actually changing, growing, and making whatever affects it has on its surroundings, due to other structures inside of them, and some of these are genetically produced by DNA that was acquired, often through a viral infection. What you have in organelles is basically functional units. And I'm sure those functional units, at least in some cases, have other functional units which are responsible for any effect they have. So where does it end? Atomic phenomena? Quantum phenomena? Where's the prime mover here.

1