but if scientists discovered a new way to build computers that was made from organic materials because this type of computer was somehow faster, would you consider it alive then? Another point. just because we made it doesn't make something any less alive. genetic engineering for example. though it isn't the same as computers today, what would you think when we develop the technology to create very advanced artificial intelligence. will it be alive? If it can speak with its own voice, would you call it a machine? If it was in control of a physical body, would it be any less of a machine, then? Though I personally don't think the computers of today are at all alive - they are so simple with their very linear operations. we have no true artificial intelligences as I see it. Not yet at least, and I don't know whether we should ever create them or if it is even possible. only time will tell.
I hope you understand that this discussion has left the "alive" building, and has entered the "sentient/thinking/consious" one
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but if scientists discovered a new way to build computers that was made from organic materials because this type of computer was somehow faster, would you consider it alive then?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The material of which the "lifeform" is made of is irrelavent. I agreed that 'life' can exist in computer memory, which is essentially not a material at all, but just information.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Another point. just because we made it doesn't make something any less alive. genetic engineering for example. though it isn't the same as computers today, what would you think when we develop the technology to create very advanced artificial intelligence. will it be alive? If it can speak with its own voice, would you call it a machine? If it was in control of a physical body, would it be any less of a machine, then?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I didnt say because we made it, its not alive. I said that because we made it, it WONT be alive without us knowing. As well, since modern day programming consist of writing lists of instructions, and since it is impossible to instruct free thought or sentience, it is impossible to program an AI which is capable of making its own decisions. Speaking/body movements are irrelevant. Many sentient beings are without voice or working body (the mute and/or the severly crippled).
just a response to the original post <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I tend to disagree Umbraed Monkey (and a tendency to disagree too, its a bad habit). As much as it feel's like the decision's I make are completely independent, almost arbitrary, in the end I still think that we live on rails instead of roads. If we have soul's or in fact any independence (to get away from the whole soul thing) then it is a passenger in this body, riding around convinced it's in control of the steering wheel instead of the back seat driver that it is. We are basically maggie in the simpsons intro of life and marge is our instincts and memories and stuff (sorry, I love analogies though, particularly weird ones <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->).
Why do we act in ways contrary to our 'programming'? It's a mix of state of mind, environmental factors and random chance, all things that a program could be capable of too. Emotions are simply chemicals, thoughts are simply neuron's firing etc... It's a pretty negative way of thinking but as long as you can forget about it most of the time it doesn't matter. After all people get motion sick in a car and yet they know that they are travelling through space at an incredible speed (not a perfect analogy I know but you get the point I'm trying to make).
In the end I think we are going to have to agree to disagree as there is no way I can be convinced in freewill (though it's a useful concept otherwise we'd all go mad/bored/criminal) just as you believe in the idea of independent thought etc. Good discussion though and feel free to change my opinions/belief's whenever you want.
Makes sense. Whats the conclusion in the sentience thread?
On trying to convince you otherwise, if you are just an automation, how do you know you exist? Who or what is doing the knowing? Automations are not consious, we clearly are.
btw, a computer program is incapable of random chance AFAIK. Those of you who are 1337 with your coding, feel free to correct me.
Hmm... I don't know if you've read much philosophy but the whole 'Cogito Ergo Sum' thing isn't the most water tight of arguments even if it feel's right. I think I am an automaton really, I don't believe in a soul and there is no other reason for that spark of consciousness that can't be reproduced using various chemicals and collections of atoms. Either I am an automaton or everything is has that spark... can't see why we'd be the exceptions to the rule.
Im pretty sure computers can come up with random numbers, I had a random number button on my calculator at school! Plus there's loads of half remembered things I did in computing years ago and... hold on...
/me searches excel
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To generate a random real number between a and b, use: RAND()*(b-a)+a
If you want to use RAND to generate a random number but don't want the numbers to change every time the cell is calculated, you can enter =RAND() in the formula bar, and then press F9 to change the formula to a random number.
Examples
To generate a random number greater than or equal to 0 but less than 100:
Is there a conclusion to this thread? No idea <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Well I'd like to argue that all we are are automaton with the ability to change the rules of the game. By this, I mean, if there is a 'program' that can describe our behavior, everytime we run the program (or even one instruction in the program) we change the other instructions, so that the next time we run it, it will give different results.
For example, take something trivial. When someone gives you the input "Hey, how are you?" You run a program which takes information such as "Do I know this person?" and you create an appropriate response "Fine, thanks."
Next time this same 'program' is run, you would again say "Fine, thanks." But we wouldn't say this, so it isn't the same program being run. When you ran it the first time, you changed your response from "Fine, thanks" to "Didn't you just ask that?" (or whatever else).
There are two ways to think about this. Either you think about it in terms of changing the program, or simply writing the program to handle the situation when it is asked twice or three times. The way programs are written now, it has to be the latter, but the biggest problem of this is that you have to anticipate cases. With the 1st one, no anticipation is required. It evolves as it goes along. It even evolves the evolution. Babies learning is a good example of the learning curve.
There is no reason to think we can't make programs the 1st way though. Programs which evolve themselves not based on cases, but based on experience. When you have this, you have intelligence much like our own. Such programs would have to grow like babies grow. At first it would be basically gibberish.
*EDIT* As for the random generation thing, to be technical, computers cannot create random numbers, because by definition, to be random, you can't predict it. You can predict it, because even though it seems random, there is a process it uses to calculate the random number. But it might as well be random.
For that matter, humans cannot generate random numbers either. I have an experiment for you. You flip a coin 100 times and write down the results OR you make up 100 coin flips and write them down. I could tell you with 100% certainty that I could tell which you chose, because humans are not random. */EDIT*
No soul. I go for a physical explaination of consiousness too. The thing is, we have yet to find out what it actually is. Without actually knowing how consiousness works, we cannot hope to reproduce it in coding.
Hawkeye is right about the computer random thing. What you have in your calculator and excel is called pseudo-random. The formulas that you showed is what you do to adjust the pseudo-randomly created number to fit within the desired range.
Hawkeye, I understand what you are going into. I do remember reading a few articles about programs "growing" algorithms better (in terms of speed/accuracy mostly) than what man was able to make. As fascinating as this is, I really doubt this would achieve consiousness. One major problem that I can think of is: how do you define its goal? If I recall correctly, these programs start with a basic program and then it pseudo-randomly generate a lot of "mutated" versions of it. The ones that best perform the specifed operation is used as a base to generate new programs. This repeats many times, probably until it cannot mutate any better programs for X number of iterations. In the end, you will still need to define something for it to work towards. Now, how do you define consiousness/free-thought/sentience? And if you CAN define this, why didnt you program that to begin with? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Your example of the coin flipping is not perfect, there is some bias in it. There are reasons for me to choose either. I could write it down out of laziness, or I could flip it all out of spite. And one trial is not A better example would be rock-paper-scissors. Can you beat me 100/100 games? Or better yet, Ill think of 100 "random" numbers out of my head (any amount of digits), and you tell me what they are.
edit: CMEast, just to the side, I havent read any deep philosophical material. Can you give me a few links to arguements against Cogito Ergo Sum? Id like to read it for fun <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
OK, I'm owned on the whole random thing although I agree with Hawkeye that we are usually predictable even when it seem's we are being completely random.
Whether there is any randomness in a person in the end will come down to personal opinion because its unprovable, we can't really get every single piece of information about someone to test it.
I've managed to scrape together two links but they aren't perfect, don't have time for a further look because work is piling up around me at the moment, I'll try looking tomorrow if I have time. Anyway, I've got one on Descartes' 'meditations' book, it's worth reading though it's alot easier to read summaries like <a href='http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/descarte.htm#Meditation%202' target='_blank'>this</a> one than it is to try reading the book first (which is what I did, good in a way as you're looking at the ideas presented with your own perspective instead of looking through someone elses eyes but its a struggle because he prefers to sound intelligent instead of understandable).
I've also found <a href='http://www.open.ac.uk/Arts/bshp/beaney/teaching/emp/descarte/cogito.htm' target='_blank'>this</a> one with some of the criticisms to his 'I think therefore I am', the most useful in this instance being the bottom one (5 - What Am I?) however they are missing one... no, its just they haven't taken point 5 far enough as I've seen that argument extended.
It's worth reading Descartes just cos he's got an interesting way of thinking (even if he completely ruins it by saying "well God exists and as he's nice he wouldn't lie to us so everything we see is real"... pillock.
Also look out for Satre, now he is more my kind of philosopher.
Are computers alive? With the discussion in this post, I would say no. All they do is activate a set of instructions based on input from an outside source. I would also say that based on that definition of life, nothing is alive.
A computer has Input systems, so do humans and all other animals.
A computer uses a mouse and keyboard, a webcam, a microphone, a touch pad, other computers through the web, ect. to get it's input. It then sends electrical pulses to the CPU and then runs the appropriate programs that interprate that input and comes up with an output. Perhaps this output is an image, comprised of 1's and 0's. Or maybe it's a word or a whole document.
Example: I hit the "q" button on my keyboard. An electric signal is sent to the PS2 mouse port on the back of my computer via a wire. It is then transfered through the motherboard to the CPU where it it processed as the letter q based on the information the CPU already has on what program I am using while I am hitting the "q" button. It then is sent out through the motherboard again to the GPU where it's own processor renders the pixels that comprise the letter q on the screen and then sends that to the monitor which displays the letter q.
Humans and other animals on the other hand use organs such as the skin, the eyes, the toung, the nose, ect. Then by means of electric pulses sends that input to the brain, where the input is processed and the appropriate information is sent out of the brain to the appropriate output organ.
Example: I touch a hot stove. Pain receptors in my hand register the heat and send a signal to my brain telling it that I am touching somthing hot. My brain goes through a list of possible things to do and picks the best one (move the friggin hand stupid!). The brain sends out an electrical signal via nerves to the muscles in my arm to contract in precise order and timing to move my hand away from the burner. Then the muscles preform that action.
The only differance is the complexity of out thoughts. But, would we still think if we had no input? If we could not feel, nor smell, taste see or hear, would we be able to do anything?
So, no, computers are not alive if that is your definition of alive, but neither are we.
A living being is not defined by whether it can receive input or not. There are people who lack certain (and all?) senses and are quite alive.
You seem to skim on the brain part of your explaination...the most important part <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but if scientists discovered a new way to build computers that was made from organic materials because this type of computer was somehow faster, would you consider it alive then?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The material of which the "lifeform" is made of is irrelavent. I agreed that 'life' can exist in computer memory, which is essentially not a material at all, but just information.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Another point. just because we made it doesn't make something any less alive. genetic engineering for example. though it isn't the same as computers today, what would you think when we develop the technology to create very advanced artificial intelligence. will it be alive? If it can speak with its own voice, would you call it a machine? If it was in control of a physical body, would it be any less of a machine, then?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I didnt say because we made it, its not alive. I said that because we made it, it WONT be alive without us knowing. As well, since modern day programming consist of writing lists of instructions, and since it is impossible to instruct free thought or sentience, it is impossible to program an AI which is capable of making its own decisions. Speaking/body movements are irrelevant. Many sentient beings are without voice or working body (the mute and/or the severly crippled).
Why do we act in ways contrary to our 'programming'? It's a mix of state of mind, environmental factors and random chance, all things that a program could be capable of too. Emotions are simply chemicals, thoughts are simply neuron's firing etc... It's a pretty negative way of thinking but as long as you can forget about it most of the time it doesn't matter. After all people get motion sick in a car and yet they know that they are travelling through space at an incredible speed (not a perfect analogy I know but you get the point I'm trying to make).
In the end I think we are going to have to agree to disagree as there is no way I can be convinced in freewill (though it's a useful concept otherwise we'd all go mad/bored/criminal) just as you believe in the idea of independent thought etc.
Good discussion though and feel free to change my opinions/belief's whenever you want.
On trying to convince you otherwise, if you are just an automation, how do you know you exist? Who or what is doing the knowing? Automations are not consious, we clearly are.
btw, a computer program is incapable of random chance AFAIK. Those of you who are 1337 with your coding, feel free to correct me.
Im pretty sure computers can come up with random numbers, I had a random number button on my calculator at school! Plus there's loads of half remembered things I did in computing years ago and... hold on...
/me searches excel
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To generate a random real number between a and b, use:
RAND()*(b-a)+a
If you want to use RAND to generate a random number but don't want the numbers to change every time the cell is calculated, you can enter =RAND() in the formula bar, and then press F9 to change the formula to a random number.
Examples
To generate a random number greater than or equal to 0 but less than 100:
RAND()*100<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do they count?
Is there a conclusion to this thread? No idea <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
For example, take something trivial. When someone gives you the input "Hey, how are you?" You run a program which takes information such as "Do I know this person?" and you create an appropriate response "Fine, thanks."
Next time this same 'program' is run, you would again say "Fine, thanks." But we wouldn't say this, so it isn't the same program being run. When you ran it the first time, you changed your response from "Fine, thanks" to "Didn't you just ask that?" (or whatever else).
There are two ways to think about this. Either you think about it in terms of changing the program, or simply writing the program to handle the situation when it is asked twice or three times. The way programs are written now, it has to be the latter, but the biggest problem of this is that you have to anticipate cases. With the 1st one, no anticipation is required. It evolves as it goes along. It even evolves the evolution. Babies learning is a good example of the learning curve.
There is no reason to think we can't make programs the 1st way though. Programs which evolve themselves not based on cases, but based on experience. When you have this, you have intelligence much like our own. Such programs would have to grow like babies grow. At first it would be basically gibberish.
*EDIT* As for the random generation thing, to be technical, computers cannot create random numbers, because by definition, to be random, you can't predict it. You can predict it, because even though it seems random, there is a process it uses to calculate the random number. But it might as well be random.
For that matter, humans cannot generate random numbers either. I have an experiment for you. You flip a coin 100 times and write down the results OR you make up 100 coin flips and write them down. I could tell you with 100% certainty that I could tell which you chose, because humans are not random. */EDIT*
Hawkeye is right about the computer random thing. What you have in your calculator and excel is called pseudo-random. The formulas that you showed is what you do to adjust the pseudo-randomly created number to fit within the desired range.
Hawkeye, I understand what you are going into. I do remember reading a few articles about programs "growing" algorithms better (in terms of speed/accuracy mostly) than what man was able to make. As fascinating as this is, I really doubt this would achieve consiousness. One major problem that I can think of is: how do you define its goal? If I recall correctly, these programs start with a basic program and then it pseudo-randomly generate a lot of "mutated" versions of it. The ones that best perform the specifed operation is used as a base to generate new programs. This repeats many times, probably until it cannot mutate any better programs for X number of iterations. In the end, you will still need to define something for it to work towards. Now, how do you define consiousness/free-thought/sentience? And if you CAN define this, why didnt you program that to begin with? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Your example of the coin flipping is not perfect, there is some bias in it. There are reasons for me to choose either. I could write it down out of laziness, or I could flip it all out of spite. And one trial is not A better example would be rock-paper-scissors. Can you beat me 100/100 games? Or better yet, Ill think of 100 "random" numbers out of my head (any amount of digits), and you tell me what they are.
edit: CMEast, just to the side, I havent read any deep philosophical material. Can you give me a few links to arguements against Cogito Ergo Sum? Id like to read it for fun <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Whether there is any randomness in a person in the end will come down to personal opinion because its unprovable, we can't really get every single piece of information about someone to test it.
I've managed to scrape together two links but they aren't perfect, don't have time for a further look because work is piling up around me at the moment, I'll try looking tomorrow if I have time.
Anyway, I've got one on Descartes' 'meditations' book, it's worth reading though it's alot easier to read summaries like <a href='http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/descarte.htm#Meditation%202' target='_blank'>this</a> one than it is to try reading the book first (which is what I did, good in a way as you're looking at the ideas presented with your own perspective instead of looking through someone elses eyes but its a struggle because he prefers to sound intelligent instead of understandable).
I've also found <a href='http://www.open.ac.uk/Arts/bshp/beaney/teaching/emp/descarte/cogito.htm' target='_blank'>this</a> one with some of the criticisms to his 'I think therefore I am', the most useful in this instance being the bottom one (5 - What Am I?) however they are missing one... no, its just they haven't taken point 5 far enough as I've seen that argument extended.
It's worth reading Descartes just cos he's got an interesting way of thinking (even if he completely ruins it by saying "well God exists and as he's nice he wouldn't lie to us so everything we see is real"... pillock.
Also look out for Satre, now he is more my kind of philosopher.
A computer has Input systems, so do humans and all other animals.
A computer uses a mouse and keyboard, a webcam, a microphone, a touch pad, other computers through the web, ect. to get it's input. It then sends electrical pulses to the CPU and then runs the appropriate programs that interprate that input and comes up with an output. Perhaps this output is an image, comprised of 1's and 0's. Or maybe it's a word or a whole document.
Example: I hit the "q" button on my keyboard. An electric signal is sent to the PS2 mouse port on the back of my computer via a wire. It is then transfered through the motherboard to the CPU where it it processed as the letter q based on the information the CPU already has on what program I am using while I am hitting the "q" button. It then is sent out through the motherboard again to the GPU where it's own processor renders the pixels that comprise the letter q on the screen and then sends that to the monitor which displays the letter q.
Humans and other animals on the other hand use organs such as the skin, the eyes, the toung, the nose, ect. Then by means of electric pulses sends that input to the brain, where the input is processed and the appropriate information is sent out of the brain to the appropriate output organ.
Example: I touch a hot stove. Pain receptors in my hand register the heat and send a signal to my brain telling it that I am touching somthing hot. My brain goes through a list of possible things to do and picks the best one (move the friggin hand stupid!). The brain sends out an electrical signal via nerves to the muscles in my arm to contract in precise order and timing to move my hand away from the burner. Then the muscles preform that action.
The only differance is the complexity of out thoughts. But, would we still think if we had no input? If we could not feel, nor smell, taste see or hear, would we be able to do anything?
So, no, computers are not alive if that is your definition of alive, but neither are we.
You seem to skim on the brain part of your explaination...the most important part <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
edit: thanks, CMEast