Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
#12695 09/08/05 05:39 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
jjw04 wrote:
"Life is motion and no motion equates to death."

And no object in the entire universe is without motion so therefore death is impossible. I like it.

Now please tell us you are less than 15 years old.


DA Morgan
.
#12696 09/08/05 08:51 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Per Morgan: "And no object in the entire universe is without motion so therefore death is impossible. I like it"

Possibly you refer to the corpse in the ground in motion as the Earth rotates. I am impressed that you could make that conclusion from my humble comments. It is of no concern to me but there are millions, possibly billions, of people that beleive life continues after "death". You may be one of those and it's fine with me.
Jim Wood

#12697 09/09/05 12:36 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Hardly. I have no use for people so insecure in their existance they have to fabricate previous lives and future lives ... in any form.

My point was your definition is suitable for a small child ... little else.


DA Morgan
#12698 09/10/05 03:48 AM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 32
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 32
As Charlie Brown would say GOOD GRIEF
Yea in the scientific world you will get your brains beaten out should you try to suggest something new, but this thread was just to gather ideas. Some are better than others. Some will be dogmatic, and some will be interesting...

My question (I do program) is what would be required to consider a program alive? My favorite book on this question is James Hogan's the Two faces of Janus.


Sparky
#12699 09/10/05 05:52 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
What would be required for a program to be considered alive? Let me rephrase that question as a way of answering it.

What would a program have to be capable of doing such that if someone stopped it from playing you would be willing to convict someone of murder and sentence them to life in prison without the possibility of parole?

Perhaps too harsh a test. How about what would a program have to be capable of doing such that you would be willing to convict someone of a crime with a punishment equal to that of animal cruelty and give them the appropriate prison sentence.

In short ... we are not yet at a point where such a determination can be made. Neither those of us that bang code, nor any society, can look that far into the future.


DA Morgan
#12700 09/11/05 08:24 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"My question (I do program) is what would be required to consider a program alive? My favorite book on this question is James Hogan's the Two faces of Janus."

Look up the term "Turing Test." You can find this in an essay called "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" by Alan Turing (among my heros). You can find this on the web, but there is a book worth reading that contains this essay among other provacative ideas - entitled, "The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence."

A few other books you might find interesting,
sf:
"When Harley was One" (Gerald)
"Code of the Lifemaker" (also by hogan!)
"The Adolescence of P1" (Ryan)
"A Fire Upon the Deep" (Vinge)
"The Complete Bolo" (Laumer)

(if you like "the complete bolo," you might try Saberhagen's Beserker Saga ... not because it has anything to do with the subject - I consider it religious propaganda - but because it's a different view of "intelligent" robots ... also it predates ideas in star-trek)

Nonfiction ... sorta:
"Goedel, Escher, Bach" (Hofstadter)
"How the Mind Works" (Pinker)'
(And also the earlier work "The Society of Mind" by Marvin Minsky)

The sf stuff is pretty fun and gives a few ideas, but the other stuff is good too, if you can muddle through it. It's a bit hard to follow, but the book edited by Boden ("philosophy of AI") is well worth the effort and it presents completely opposite views on the subject.

#12701 09/12/05 02:38 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Falliable ... we got the question the first time. Repeating it doesn't change a thing. You need to separate fiction from fantasy.

The definition of "when is it alive" is one that must be applied by people. And it will be defined when it is a crime to kill one.

So far kill -9 is not a criminal act. At least not in most situations. ;-)


DA Morgan
#12702 09/12/05 03:09 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"The definition of "when is it alive" is one that must be applied by people. And it will be defined when it is a crime to kill one."


The legal definition doesn't necessarily equate to the ethical or scientific definition. I suspect the term "alive" is too ambiguous to yield a response to the question, but it's probably about as specific as is warranted given the hypothetical nature of the subject.

#12703 09/12/05 08:59 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
The legal definition doesn't necessarily equate to the ethical or scientific definition.
REP:The defintion of life has evolved over a period of time.What yesterday was without life is today known to be alive.This iterative process of self correction does not make the topic hypothetical or redundant. The question still remains relevant and necessary because so much depends on it.The answer is known but it is subjective.
The desired objective reality is still debated.
However I am sure that there is an objective answer which can be accepted by all... The discreet calibaration of cause and effect produces false reality in some cases.From killing an Ant to a Human being there is a sudden crystallization of its implication.
How many ants can be killed before it becomes equivalent to a murder?
The nature of crime and its punishment as defined by Law is assumed to be consitent with the Laws of Nature.I am not criticizing the system which has performed so well but yes there is tremendous scope for improvement.
With so much of information around I think it should be possible to create the complete picture of commonly understood reality.
Running away from the debate will only encourage those who do not believe in Science.
==============================================

#12704 10/03/05 05:03 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Defending my Notion of Black Hole Communication:- Things communicate when common understanding is reached. This logic comes from Mathematics.Maths doesnt allow its own violation in objects created by its own rules.. There is always a way to commincate with any Natural body.Which means anything can be probed over a period of time.. Experiment and The Truth seekers are independent .... Experiment always gives the true picture and Truth Seekers use democracy or autocracy or logic(self) to reach a defintion or reality... And not everyone will agree that pigs fly... tomorrow the pigs may indeed fly after enough engineering (when dinos can fly why cant pigs?????)
Infinite possibilities are closely bounded by discovered laws.There are very few laws which actually change over a short period. The planck constant may also have evolved as an experssion of dimensional evolution.But once you enter a chosen Universe it becomes very diffuclt to vary it.Got it. Dont worry about infinite possibilities.Everything is not allowed to be realized beyond thought!!!
Thats religiously satisfying.

#12705 10/07/05 12:07 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
The particles that fuse together to make DNA are only doing this because they are following the rules of science. Snails, cells and Humans are all made of DNA. DNA is made of particles. A single particle and a single molecule of DNA is not seen to be conscious or living. yet a whole, structured group of them, i.e a human, is considered to be living. Then, shouldn't that imply that all the descisions that humans make and actions they perform are ultimately still these particles following rules?

P.S.
Amaranth Rose, I'm sorry. I tried to rate you as 4 but I accidentaly gave you the lowest rating. Can someone please tell me how to change ratings you have already given.

#12706 10/07/05 04:03 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
G
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
G
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally poste.d by dkv:
Do we really understand what does the term Life stands for?
Yes. Life is a magazine.
http://www.life.com/Life/

And remember. Term Life is less than Whole Life.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Term+Life+vs.+Whole+Life

#12707 10/08/05 02:28 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Rob:
To answer your question I will paraphrase the Rubhayat with apologies to Omar Khayyam:

The rating button clicks, and having clicked, moves on;
All our pleas and entreaties cannot call it back again,
Nor all our tears wash out a click of it.

Once you click, it's history. Sorry, can't help you there.

wink

"Amaranth"

#12708 10/11/05 04:38 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Why do we have the will to live?

Because during evolution, anyone who didn't- died.

#12709 10/12/05 02:39 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Rob asks:
"Why do we have the will to live?"

Those that didn't ... left no ancestors.


DA Morgan
#12710 10/12/05 11:24 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
yeah, that's what I meant

#12711 10/13/05 05:45 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
"Why do we have the will to live?"
Those that didn't ... left no ancestors.

REP: Interesting ... those who didnt left no ancestors... Morgan dont tell me that you are saying Electrons or Protons exist because they have Will to Live?Going by this I think everyone has a Will .. a Will to Live .. Rest left no ancestors..for us to verify ... There is something special about it.

#12712 10/14/05 12:11 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dvk asks:
"... dont tell me that you are saying Electrons or Protons exist because they have Will to Live?"

Lets try this in English. And very slowly. Using very small words.

Rob asked: "Why do WE have the will to live?"

I answered his question.

Where, precisely, in the word "we" did you find reason to interpret "we" as subatomic particles?

Inquiring minds want to know.


DA Morgan
#12713 10/14/05 12:06 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
I wasn't asking, I was answering and stating the question. (not that it really matters)

Yeah, dvk, where did you see the link between humans and subatomic particles, is this a notion from a theory? If so, please expand on it.

#12714 10/15/05 06:07 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Morgan ,
Your statement was logically extendable.
Read the Statement.
Whatever which exists wanted to Exist.Rest all are no more."MY-GOD" particles never wanted to exist in so many numbers.

Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5