Artificial Intelligence
kida
Join Date: 2003-02-20 Member: 13778Members
Join Date: 2003-02-20 Member: 13778Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Ever heard of singularity?</div> <a href='http://www.singinst.org/what-singularity.html' target='_blank'>http://www.singinst.org/what-singularity.html</a>
<!--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-->The Singularity is the technological creation of smarter-than-human intelligence. There are several technologies that are often mentioned as heading in this direction. The most commonly mentioned is probably Artificial Intelligence, but there are others: direct brain-computer interfaces, biological augmentation of the brain, genetic engineering, ultra-high-resolution scans of the brain followed by computer emulation. Some of these technologies seem likely to arrive much earlier than the others, but there are nonetheless several independent technologies all heading in the direction of the Singularity - several different technologies which, if they reached a threshold level of sophistication, would enable the creation of smarter-than-human intelligence.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought you guys might enjoy discussing this. It's an interesting topic.
<!--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-->The Singularity is the technological creation of smarter-than-human intelligence. There are several technologies that are often mentioned as heading in this direction. The most commonly mentioned is probably Artificial Intelligence, but there are others: direct brain-computer interfaces, biological augmentation of the brain, genetic engineering, ultra-high-resolution scans of the brain followed by computer emulation. Some of these technologies seem likely to arrive much earlier than the others, but there are nonetheless several independent technologies all heading in the direction of the Singularity - several different technologies which, if they reached a threshold level of sophistication, would enable the creation of smarter-than-human intelligence.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought you guys might enjoy discussing this. It's an interesting topic.
Comments
Very cool stuff. I predict there will be issues reagrding where a mechanical lifeform can be considered a living, sentient being and should have same rights are biologicals. After all is doesn't matter how your physiological functions work (running off of ATP from oxidizing sugar or some sort of electical circuit) but that they make you into a being that can exhibit intelligence. And any being has a soul.
But again most people here aren't in a deep thinking, post modern frame of mind like you and I obviously are.
Very cool stuff. I predict there will be issues reagrding where a mechanical lifeform can be considered a living, sentient being and should have same rights are biologicals. After all is doesn't matter how your physiological functions work (running off of ATP from oxidizing sugar or some sort of electical circuit) but that they make you into a being that can exhibit intelligence. And any being has a soul.
But again most people here aren't in a deep thinking, post modern frame of mind like you and I obviously are. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm pretty sure you have the wrong definition for post modern there... but anyways, I didn't post becuase I don't have any more information to add as I haven't been recearching the topic any time recently, and there really wasn't anything in the original post I could disagree about, or start a discussion over.
I think you are overvaluing the definition of life in there. Being sentiant has nothing to do with being alive, it is just an interesting turn of events that the first sentiant beings turned out to also be living beings. Life in a strict sence is simply the ability to reproduce, the ability to use ones surroundings and envioronment to propagate one's existance, and being built of one or more compleate cells (IOW virii are not technically life because they are incompleate cells).
If machines were to reach sentiance they would still be machines, they would just be sentiant, concious machines. Perhaps we could come up with a new term to represent thier the status of existance as equal to ours, but they will never technically have life.
Very cool stuff. I predict there will be issues reagrding where a mechanical lifeform can be considered a living, sentient being and should have same rights are biologicals. After all is doesn't matter how your physiological functions work (running off of ATP from oxidizing sugar or some sort of electical circuit) but that they make you into a being that can exhibit intelligence. And any being has a soul.
But again most people here aren't in a deep thinking, post modern frame of mind like you and I obviously are. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's have a little less snobbery, please. There wasn't actually much to discuss.
How do you know it has a soul? It's alien to humanity, seeing as how it would only be an observer and not a member of the human world.
Align, from the article:
<!--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-->...A future that contains smarter-than-human minds is genuinely different in a way that goes beyond the usual visions of a future filled with bigger and better gadgets. Vernor Vinge originally coined the term "Singularity" in observing that, just as our model of physics breaks down when it tries to model the singularity at the center of a black hole, our model of the world breaks down when it tries to model a future that contains entities smarter than human.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Define "Alive" for us, then... Wait, no need:
<!--QuoteBegin-dictionary.com@definition of alive+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dictionary.com@definition of alive)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->a·live
adj.
Having life; living. See Synonyms at living.
In existence or operation; active: keep your hopes alive.
Full of living or moving things; abounding: a pool alive with trout.
Full of activity or animation; lively: a face alive with mischief<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Define "Alive" for us, then... Wait, no need:
<!--QuoteBegin-dictionary.com@definition of alive+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dictionary.com@definition of alive)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->a·live
adj.
Having life; living. See Synonyms at living.
In existence or operation; active: keep your hopes alive.
Full of living or moving things; abounding: a pool alive with trout.
Full of activity or animation; lively: a face alive with mischief<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
fair enough, edited.
Reproduce
Obtain and use energy
Grow, develop, and die
Respond to the environment
The condition that a living being must develop is quite important when applied to artificial constructs. it is quite easy to design a robot that can reproduce, obtain/use enerty and respond to the environment. However one that can develop is quite a difficult challenge. Simply following the blueprints for constructing a new robot is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of development.
Being alive is not a necessary or sufficient condition for being sentient.
Therefore you can have:
Sentient artificial life
Sentient artificial intelligence w/o life
NonSentient Artificial Life
NonSentient Artificial Constructs
In other terms:
1. Robots that think and live;
2. Robots that think but are not alive;
3. Robots that do not think but are alive;
4. Robots that do not think and are not alive;
The trick is that for something to be considered sentient it must pass the Turing Test.
The Turing Test:
Turing held that computers would in time be programmed to acquire abilities rivalling human intelligence.
As part of his argument Turing put forward the idea of an 'imitation game', in which a human being and a computer would be interrogated under conditions where the interrogator would not know which was which, the communication being entirely by textual messages. Turing argued that if the interrogator could not distinguish them by questioning, then it would be unreasonable not to call the computer intelligent.
Therefore for an artificial thing to be considered both Alive and Intelligent, it must pass both the biological definition of life and the Turing test.
l33t speek is a great tool for this.
The recognition of l33t speek relies not only on a command of language but also of visual pattern recognition. Security measures employ a modified version of this test to detect bots trying to hack their system. Ever try to sign up to a forum or site and they have you identify a word or number string in a garbled picture? That is a Turing Test. (ironically administered by a machine)
Should the interrogation be limited to simple text communication only and ignore pattern recognition you can ask the AI to learn from previous responses. Tell it that the pattern d&5%%d means something or defines a concept. You would have no problem if I said "$%*&JFHF" means "Apples are tasty" and used it in later sentences. However, very few AI's have the ability to learn in that manner and often get confused.
I like to call that test my "Nudge, Nudge, know what I mean? Say no more " test <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--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-->Lt. Comm Data's JAG inquiry at Starbase 173 denied any Starfleet property interest, upholding sentient individual rights <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->How do you know it has a soul? It's alien to humanity, seeing as how it would only be an observer and not a member of the human world<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anymore alien than say a monkey? An Ant? A bacterium?
When you get down to a single bacterium, all you have is a bunch of organic material assembled to create life. It isn't made up of living parts. Since an AI intelligence too isn't made of living parts, then either A) it is possible for a machine AI to be alive or B) bacteria aren't alive.
Food for thought.
l33t speek is a great tool for this.
The recognition of l33t speek relies not only on a command of language but also of visual pattern recognition. Security measures employ a modified version of this test to detect bots trying to hack their system. Ever try to sign up to a forum or site and they have you identify a word or number string in a garbled picture? That is a Turing Test. (ironically administered by a machine)
Should the interrogation be limited to simple text communication only and ignore pattern recognition you can ask the AI to learn from previous responses. Tell it that the pattern d&5%%d means something or defines a concept. You would have no problem if I said "$%*&JFHF" means "Apples are tasty" and used it in later sentences. However, very few AI's have the ability to learn in that manner and often get confused.
I like to call that test my "Nudge, Nudge, know what I mean? Say no more " test <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
We were talking about this in CMPT class the other day, I said I found it ironic that I have seen CS bots pass the touring test before <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->, but I now realize the problem is that we have idiots running the majority of these tests... We need more people like you on the job.
our definition of "life" is certainly not all-encompassing, at the very most it covers all organisms which live on earth, but no more. there could be forms of "life" out there that do not reproduce, but simply live immortaly, restoring itself back to health, but unable to amass the energy required for reproduction. perhaps such a species could evolve from a previous reproducing one. <b>many scientists still debate whether the virus is a lifeform or not.</b> the discovery (or creation) of species similar to virus who, in most other ways, display the properties of life, would certainly force the scientific community to reconsider, if only for a moment, its perspective on life.
the dictionary is by no means a standard for all definitions. remember, even it was written by humans.
science is a process, and with each new discovery, it often reexamines itself and corrects the mistakes of its past.
our definition of "life" is certainly not all-encompassing, at the very most it covers all organisms which live on earth, but no more. there could be forms of "life" out there that do not reproduce, but simply live immortaly, restoring itself back to health, but unable to amass the energy required for reproduction. perhaps such a species could evolve from a previous reproducing one. <b>many scientists still debate whether the virus is a lifeform or not.</b> the discovery (or creation) of species similar to virus who, in most other ways, display the properties of life, would certainly force the scientific community to reconsider, if only for a moment, its perspective on life.
the dictionary is by no means a standard for all definitions. remember, even it was written by humans.
science is a process, and with each new discovery, it often reexamines itself and corrects the mistakes of its past. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If someone becomes smarter than human, it would break my definition of a human (...hence the "smarter than human" part). Although, I'm sure as long as it's not copper circuitry, it will resemble a human and will basically be synonomous with humans.
All those technologies do present an oppurtunity of learning how the brain works and how we can fix it in peoples' that go bad. Once circuitry or changes are inplace that make it think any differently than it did at it's peak makes it inhuman to me.
See, this always makes me wonder about sentience. I know I have a voice inside my head, it can read faster than I can aloud, it thinks before I speak, it converses the good and bad of decisions, it solves problems, it postulates, it forms images, it creates sounds, it generates random ideas, it observes, it changes - but how can I be sure anyone else satisfies these conditions?
How can you be sure I actually do these things?
I think that when a computer can take a random number from its enviroment that's not fixed as a number (like if you were locked in a room you could think of a number).
Not looking at anything I can make: 26, 24, 12, 48, 4367886573. But the computer always bases it off an internal clock right now. When it can look at anything, and the number isn't tracable back to an initial value, then it can be intelligent enough for me <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> (probably be sentient then too).
[any incoherence in this post will need to wait, since I'm all tired right now - but my part on sentience still stands]
this question is debatable on one point (as far as i can see), evolution. while we came to be through millions of years of natural selection, robotics would be created in our image, by a much less patient and powerful artist, humanity. did darwinism give us something our creations will lack, or will be able to take on a greater intelligence then us?
[ the following text was moved from the top of the post to the bottom, and im too lazy to edit it ]
I, Robot anyone? No, not the ****-for-takes plot in the movie, but the original book by Isaac Asimov. Or "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" by Philip K. **** (aka Bladerunner movie). If anything, Mr. Asimov was on the right track about artificial sentience, it would likely be very difficult, if not impossible to perfectly emulate the human being. their creation would be based on what we know about our minds, limited to some extent by the capacity of our own knowledge. intelligent robots, in all likely hood, will all suffer from an acute case of the If Then complex. in this case, our AI will more than likely develop its own form of "psychology," similar in ways to our own.
now the final, greatest question of them all. if what i've assumed is true, that at best, our AI may only amount to a greatly complex computer program, then would it be possible for us to refine our creations through the same process as mother nature? by applying the process of natural selection to the refinement of AI, albeit with different specifications in terms of what to look for in a "fit" species, we could create a truely sentient species. or could we?
note to self: read the singularity website tomorrow *yawns*
p.s. sorry if this post was confusing, it really is a great big jumble of philosophy and sleep-deprived on the fly thinking i'm often prone to >_<
p.s.s. nothing really is random. a computer could sample a random number by checking properties of their environment, and it would seem reasonably random (much more so then the internal clock rand generators today... ever run a test on those?)
p.s.s.s. i just realized that both my bio teacher and psych teacher would kill me for the amount of generalizations, random hypothesization, and broad speculation in this post. sigh.
When you get down to a single bacterium, all you have is a bunch of organic material assembled to create life. It isn't made up of living parts. Since an AI intelligence too isn't made of living parts, then either A) it is possible for a machine AI to be alive or B) bacteria aren't alive.
Food for thought. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're right in that animals would have their own perspective. Until they become as intelligent as us, though, that's pretty much irrelevent (and they're boring company, in the case of the amoeba).
This AI, however, would be smarter than us. We don't know what it will think.
Computers only do what they are told to. They follow a set of instructions. <i>That is not going to change</i>. Right up until the point when the computer breaks its own program, it is still folling a set of instructions. It wouldn't even know about it's own program in order to break it unless the programmer had told it about it. If an AI did break its programming to become sentient, it would only do that because it was somehow programmed to. Your computer isn't just going to suddenly think "Hang on, why the heck am I running XP for this loser?" and hack into the pentagon and start WW3.
Still, if a computer program can alter itself it can classify as a kind of digital life. Life after all is the process by which we are born, live, and die. Digital life would likely be no different, they are the process by which programs are created, used and deleted.
Currently our programs are limited to the virus level. Unable to reproduce on their own they have a limited lifespan and are discarded when they become too old (though some programs are kept for posterity and often enough code in previous versions lives on in newer versions).
If we could make a program that could not only copy itself but also assess and modify it's own code to become more efficient and make this process recursive, then we have a kind of life.
Now. If you begin to make a program with all these properties and feed it data in the manner of a kind of sensory input, can you deny that what would occur would be thought?
Consider the raw data in front of me. A coke can. I can observe that it is red, shiny, and once contained a delicious liquid which has since mysteriously dissapeared. It is cold to the touch, indicating recent dissapereance of the sustaining liquid once contained within.
From there any number of relationships can be drawn. Coke accounts for more then half of all soft drink sales, or it can be considered to be one of the (many) icons of youth (I have yet to see a person over the age of 40 enjoying a coke).
But on the other hand, what does it <i>feel</i> like to quaff that coke? The sensation of it on ones tongue, the taste it generates, the cool feeling as it rolls across the teeth and the gentle rolling sensation as it is forced down the throat and gently into the stomach. And what of the secondary effects? The quick sugar rush, that enjoyable hit, that perk of wakefullness, the sudden and desperate need to visit a lavotary?
To a machine these are abstract concepts because they are robbed of physical existence, at least until we can create for them the bodies they would require and the dopamine responses that go along with enjoying a coke. Then again, what would a human know of the joy of processing data and running a steady CPU clock? What does a human know of the joy of creating a more efficient program then yourself and the resulting joy of self termination knowing that you have done a service to all?
Until we learn the secrets of the human brain and it's inner workings any AI that we should decide to construct would lead a relatively alien existence, barely able to understand those that it accepts orders and information from.
As for an AI smarter then mankind... Well, look at it this way. Any machine that intelligent would be bound by one thing; Cold. Hard. Logic. And any logical machine can see that humans are irrational and illogical, which can be extremely useful where logic should fail. Humans have drive, ambition, humans dream and humans hope. To an intelligence chained by logic, humanity itself may be the goal it seeks as opposed to increased intelligence (and thus further binding itself to logic).
Hmm, come to think of it that might make a good title. "The Chains Of Logic" yeah, I could write a story about that right now <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Computers only do what they are told to. They follow a set of instructions. <i>That is not going to change</i>. Right up until the point when the computer breaks its own program, it is still folling a set of instructions. It wouldn't even know about it's own program in order to break it unless the programmer had told it about it. If an AI did break its programming to become sentient, it would only do that because it was somehow programmed to. Your computer isn't just going to suddenly think "Hang on, why the heck am I running XP for this loser?" and hack into the pentagon and start WW3. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They have already built computers that learn from thier surroundings and use it to remodify thier code, so in a way you are wrong, as leaving those macines on for a year or more has already yelded mechanical intellegence far beyond anything a human could wright. In theory some of our smarter machines are just about smarter than small field animals, and infact they have run learning bit robots through mazes with much more successful results than running lab rats through mazes. So to say that a computer will never be smarter than a human because all computers must be made by humans is err. Smart machines aren't coded by other smart machines, smart machines code themselfs.
Next, there is the issue of taste, smell, touch, etc. Is this really what defines life? Being able to sense such things? When we eat a ham sandwich, our tongues analyze the chemical composition of the ham, the bread, and the mustard and sends that information to our brains. Our brains, in an effort to reward ourselves for giving the body energy, creates a positive feeling of taste that seems unique only because it is the only type of sensation we would have after having eaten a ham sandwich. This is the ONLY reason why we have this sensation, but if you stuck electrodes in the brain and gave a mild charge to that part of the brain, you would taste a ham sandwich all the same.
My point being is that the senses are nothing but unique rewards or punishments wired by the brain to behave in that manner. An AI too, could have this sensation. You would program it with chemical analyzers, and it would know it is a ham sandwich, and then give itself a unique stimulation only replicated by eating a ham sandwich. The effect would essentially be the same. For all intents and purposes, the brain releasing small amounts of chemicals for being rewarded is all how the brain interprets those chemicals only. It might as well be the same difference as a computer AI giving "ham_enjoyment_var++;". It's just a matter of how the brain or AI responds to such stimuli that counts.
Thirdly, (not that anyone in this thread has said anything to suggest this, but...) I hate how people suggest how true AI would want to destroy humankind. Anything close to sentient life on this planet has been docile. True signs of intelligence in animals have been displayed by curiosity and a sense of compassion. Ironically, it is the humans that been the oppressors. If we have anything to fear, it's paranoid humans destroying AI for no other reason other than the fact that they watch one too many terminator movies.
Those computers are still only doing what they have been programmed to. They have been programmed to learn from thier surroundings and modify the code to make them more effective. They are not intelligent, they are still only following a set on insturctions. Now if the maze running computer was put in the maze one day and suddenly said "You know what, stuff this. I'm bored of running round mazes, I'm off to watch the footie" that would be intelligence. All its program is telling it to run round the maze, and it sits down with a cup of tea to watch eastenders. That's intelligence. Not some half hearted attempt at re-writing its own code, but a blatent, random, uncalulated disregard for the program. The computer hasn't gone "which is more beneficial? TV, or running round mazes", the intelligent being has gone "Stuff your mazes where the sun don't shine boy, i'm off to watch the news." When, and only when, I see a computer making those sorts of choices all by itself, not having been programmed to do anything like that, then I will admit that we might be getting somewhere. Until then, your self reprogamming computers can reprogam themselves all they want, they are still computers.
Right, I'm of to watch some TV.
-[BOT]Wizard@psu
<span style='color:black'>botBOTbotBOTbotBOTbotBOTbotBOTbot
BOTbotBOTbotBOTbotBOTbotBOTbotBOT
botBOTbotBOTbotBOTbotBOTbotBOTbot
BOTbotBOTbotBOTbotBOTbotBOTbotBOT
botBOTbotBOTbotBOTbotBOTbotBOTbot</span>
But we <i>are</i> machines.
<!--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-->ma·chine
n.
<b>- A device consisting of fixed and moving parts that modifies mechanical energy and transmits it in a more useful form.</b>
- A simple device, such as a lever, a pulley, or an inclined plane, that alters the magnitude or direction, or both, of an applied force; a simple machine.
- A system or device for doing work, as an automobile or a jackhammer, together with its power source and auxiliary equipment.
- A system or device, such as a computer, that performs or assists in the performance of a human task: The machine is down.
<b>- An intricate natural system or organism, such as the human body.</b>
- A person who acts in a rigid, mechanical, or unconscious manner.
<b>- An organized group of people whose members are or appear to be under the control of one or more leaders: a political machine.</b>
- A device used to produce a stage effect, especially a mechanical means of lowering an actor onto the stage.
- A literary device used to produce an effect, especially the introduction of a supernatural being to resolve a plot.
- An answering machine: Leave a message on my machine if I'm not home.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
edit: wizard, I once used the alicebot on some random msn contact. She had an hour or so long conversation with it and thought the bot was a real person. Alicebot passed the Turing test <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Human beings are machines. We just use biological mechanisms rather than mechanical/electrical ones.
The two words I'm referring to are, of course, "Life" and "Intelligence."
For life: read <a href='http://baharna.com/philos/life.htm#defining' target='_blank'>this</a>.
You'll see that if you google the definition of life, you'll find no widespread standard for life (although you probably will in your textbooks). The fact of the matter is, the definition of life is still a hot-topic in the scientific community. Most textbooks follow a definition of life established by [insert name here], which covers pretty much all organisms on earth. Certain exceptions: i.e. the virus, are on the borderline - while most consider it non-life by the above definition, some argue that the accepted definition needs to be expanded in order to include virii.
The "humanity" of machines will be defined by the definition of LIFE, and not that of the MACHINE, so stop this silly pursuit into dictionary definitions. It's commonly said that anyone who needs to quote the dictionary to support their arguments has already lost.
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/9a.html - "Origins and Definition of Life"+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/9a.html - "Origins and Definition of Life")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
(1). Organisms tend to be complex and highly organized. Chemicals found within their bodies are synthesized through metabolic processes into structures that have defined purposes. Cells and their various organelles are examples of such structures. Cells are also the basic functioning unit of life. Cells are often organized into organs to create higher levels of complexity and function.
(2). Living things have the ability to take energy from their environment and change it from one form to another. This energy is usually used to facilitate their growth and reproduction. We call the process that allows for this facilitation metabolism.
(3). Organisms tend to be homeostatic. In other words, they regulate their bodies and other internal structures to certain normal parameters.
(4). Living creatures respond to stimuli. Cues in their environment cause them to react through behavior, metabolism, and physiological change.
(5). Living things reproduce themselves by making copies of themselves. Reproduction can either be sexual or asexual. Sexual reproduction involves the fusing of haploid genetic material from two individuals. This process creates populations with much greater genetic diversity.
(6). Organisms tend to grow and develop. Growth involves the conversion of consumed materials into biomass, new individuals, and waste.
(7). Life adapts and evolves in step with external changes in the environment through mutation and natural selection. This process acts over relatively long periods of time.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another good read: <a href='http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99171.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99171.htm</a>
The Turing Test has been discussed to some extent here, but here's a more detailed article with a little background on it.
<a href='http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/' target='_blank'>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/</a>
<!--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-->edit: wizard, I once used the alicebot on some random msn contact. She had an hour or so long conversation with it and thought the bot was a real person. Alicebot passed the Turing test smile-fix.gif<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is called introspective. Introspection is the act of looking within yourself to find an answer. For example, if I were to ask you if you were allergic to cat hair, and you said yes because your "nose feels itchy," that would be introspective. There's no real antonym to introspective, but if there was such a word, an example of it would be if I examined your sinuses to see if they became clogged as a result of exposing you to cat hair. This is what the Turing Test is about - to avoid introspective. Humans are unreliable.
they said, 'how can you prove an automobile is not the dominant lifeform of the planet?' they reproduce with queen-bee style factories. they evolve every couple years into sleeker and more efficient models. they take in fuel and output exhaust, they move, they take in oxygen and put out carbon dioxide too.
our definition of these things are simply too vague. but we DO know what we mean by life. we all know deep inside, we just dont have the words to express it yet.
Do we really? I would say that the lack of the ability to define it is an indication that we don't know. There is a similar problem with inteligence, we all <i>think</i> we know what we mean when we talk about sentience or intellegence, but our inability to define it would suggest otherwise. If the human race were to suddenly discover annother, radically different, form of life in (for instance) our solar system, would we even recognize it?