DescentBB

As we all know Life is defined as something being mobile and can reproduce itself. If so then we will soon have to declare robots "alive":

"Each unit comes with a small computer code carrying a blueprint for the layout of the robot, electrical contacts to let it communicate with its neighbours, and magnets to let them stick together.

By turning and moving, the cubes can pick up new units, decide where they belong, and stack them alongside each other to make new devices.

In a little more than a minute, a simple three-cube robot can make a copy of itself.:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4538547.stm

Perhaps we won't even have to housebreak these puppies.

hmm... ah ok i get it.
the initial robot is just one or so cubes, it is the only thing on the board that contains any programming as it grabs other "dumb blocks" it downloads it's programming into them, thereby making them "alive" with it's own programming. then even if these blocks detatch, they will continue to operate automamously because they now contain a copy of the original cube's programming.

so yeah, that is kinda cool. too bad it's only food source is pre-prepared dumb robotic cubes. if it could eat raw matierials, then THAT would be the big step forward that this article is futuristically eluding to .


btw, life doesn't have to be able to reproduce to be defined as life. a sterile Mule is a living being - it isn't just a mass of cells - since the cells within a mule CAN reproduce they would fit your definition, but the whole mule wouldn't.

ps: would computer viruses be defined as life? they reproduce quite easily. their only difference is that i don't think there are any computer viruses that organise their own collectives - or are controlled by a central location.
adware does that .

Another one of my ideas "stolen".
This is like #3 already. Still, my idea is a bit more complex, need to find my old notebook.

Another of the requirements of life is that it must be able to produce its own energy. Computer viruses, and human viruses actually, cannot produce their own energy and thus would not be classified as life.

Main Entry: 1life
Pronunciation: 'lIf
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural lives /'lIvz/
Etymology: Middle English lif, from Old English lIf; akin to Old English libban to live -- more at LIVE
1 a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings -- compare VITALISM 1 c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual b : one or more aspects of the process of living <sex life of the frog>
3 : BIOGRAPHY 1
4 : spiritual existence transcending physical death
5 a : the period from birth to death b : a specific phase of earthly existence <adult life> c : the period from an event until death <a judge appointed for life> d : a sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of a convict's life
6 : a way or manner of living
7 : LIVELIHOOD
8 : a vital or living being; specifically : PERSON <many lives were lost in the disaster>
9 : an animating and shaping force or principle
10 : SPIRIT, ANIMATION <there was no life in her dancing>
11 : the form or pattern of something existing in reality <painted from life>
12 : the period of duration, usefulness, or popularity of something <the expected life of flashlight batteries>
13 : the period of existence (as of a subatomic particle) -- compare HALF-LIFE
14 : a property (as resilience or elasticity) of an inanimate substance or object resembling the animate quality of a living being
15 : living beings (as of a particular kind or environment) <forest life>
16 a : human activities b : animate activity and movement <stirrings of life> c : the activities of a given sphere, area, or time <the political life of the country>
17 : one providing interest and vigor <life of the party>
18 : an opportunity for continued viability <gave the patient a new life>
19 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD 1b
20 : something resembling animate life <a grant saved the project's life>



With m-w's definition, robots can have lives (lifespans), but are not alive. They have no metabolism and are not animate.

So circuitry is not Metabolism? And what makes you think they won't be mobile?

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

In biology, an entity has traditionally been considered to be alive if it exhibits all the following phenomena at least once during its existence:

Growth
Metabolism, consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste
Motion, either moving itself, or having internal motion
Reproduction, the ability to create entities that are similar to itself
Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions.

So yes, in many ways, we're approaching the ability to create a type of artificial life, if you're willing to stretch your definitions some.

Human viruses are just as alive as you are, Stryker.

Besides the fact that they cannot reproduce themselves--their only method of reproduction is to invade a cell and turn it into a mobile virus production facility.

Recommended Film: Montey Python's "The meaning of Life." It anwsers every question from sex Ed in school, over eating, death, and the sacrement of semen.

Testiculese wrote:Human viruses are just as alive as you are, Stryker.

Actually, the exact classification of viruses as "life" is somewhat muddled. Considering that a virus is basically a protein case around a strand of DNA or RNA, it doesn't really fit any traditional definitions of life (no metabolism, growth, motion, response to stimuli, etc.) Even if you do consider viruses to be "alive," they're definitely not at the same level of life as a bacterium, an amoeba, a tree, or a human. After all, prions and viroids are capable of "reproduction," and they're just protiens and genetic fragments specifically; would you qualify them as life as well?

It all depends on which definitions you use.

The wiki definition seems to be the most reasonable to my eye.

Is it just me or do these things sound a lot like a primitive version of the Replicators on Stargate SG1.

WarAdvocat wrote:From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

In biology, an entity has traditionally been considered to be alive if it exhibits all the following phenomena at least once during its existence:
...
Reproduction, the ability to create entities that are similar to itself
...

a mule is therefore not life.
does anyone have any comment on this?

Actually, roid, there have been a few cases where mules were born fertile and successfully produced offspring. I think you're taking that part of the definition too stringently, though. As I said above, prions (which cause mad cow disease, among other things) are simply mutated proteins; they reproduce themselves by reconfiguring healthy proteins to their form, but they would definitely not be considered a form of life. Also, by your logic, any man who gets a vasectomy would no longer be alive. The key difference with mules is that they are an artifically created form of life, i.e. through controlled interspecies breeding. Any species can reproduce to create more of its species, but a mule doesn't really qualify as a distinct species; it's more of a cross-breed.

I have to say that robot life like that could not be necessarily considered true life becuase of no true spirit within them. I completely try to say this without coming across as sacrilegious, because its not. I mean, a human has a spirit, seems to do what he pleases, and if he wants to walk down the street, he walks down the street. An animal does the same thing. It moves, it wants to eat that thing over there in the grass, so it does. A robot, on the other hand, simply does not have that. It's built to think, "Do this" and it does it. That robot is built thinking, "Make myself again" so it does. It can't think, "Go find a better energy source" or it can't think, "Move to a better location for reconstructing myself." Even with artificial intelligence, it's constructed with many different variables to respond to in certain ways, but it does not have a spirit where it can respond, "No, I'll do it this way insted." If a robot is burned by a lighter, for instance, it's programming may say to run from the heat source. The robot will always do that. However, a human can, in a circumstance, truly will themselves to continue to be burned. That's the "spirit" I'm talking about. That's the "spirit" that I believe robots do not have. That may change one day, but so far that's as far as it goes. I think to have true life you have to have "spirit."

Ok, that was long, but maybe this explains it somewhat, from my veiw.

A single or multi-celled organism. Thats the science definition I think.

This all reminds me of one of the possible theories on how to destroy the earth:

Build a robot that's sole programming is to:

1) Gather materials from the ground
2) Use these materials to clone itself


In a matter of time, the entire planet would theoritically be replaced by robots

Vertigo 99 wrote:Build a robot that's sole programming is to:

1) Gather materials from the ground
2) Use these materials to clone itself

All you'd have to do is build a robot that goes around killing those robots, and build enough of them to keep its production levels down.

there are some amongst us D2Junkie, who would say that humans are just complicated computers. you must be careful not to just define anything you can't understand as "spirit". for instance, i understand cause and effects (abiet, yes they can get complex, but they are still predictable) of a lot of the things that your post implied were beyond prediction . it wouldn't be too hard to write programming for them. it all starts with motives - motive to not die - motive to not feel pain - motive to feel good - motive to feel secure - etc. you could probably just modify Maslow's theorys to suit the task, then program a rather human, spiritual A.I.

Vertigo 99 wrote:This all reminds me of one of the possible theories on how to destroy the earth:

Build a robot that's sole programming is to:

1) Gather materials from the ground
2) Use these materials to clone itself

In a matter of time, the entire planet would theoritically be replaced by robots

assuming it can't be killed (seriously, why not?);
just scoop the robotic mass up by surrounding it with a buffer and fire it into space in a rocket.

Well, the whole idea behind the earth-destroying robot is that it reproduces fast enough to be unstoppable

I never said it was a FEASIBLE idea

If the common house fly was left to breed with no predation, in something like a years time the whole earth would be covered with flies a foot deep (or more).

In regards to special cases (such as mules)....

I included a link to the source material for a reason

Vertigo 99 wrote:Well, the whole idea behind the earth-destroying robot is that it reproduces fast enough to be unstoppable

I never said it was a FEASIBLE idea

heh, yeah i remember when we were all talking about this at the DBB last time. i realised then that a self replicating liform like that - like an outof control army of NANOBOTS - would not really be that much of a threat, because microbiotic lifeforms only move at microbiotic speeds . they would run outof food very fast, and be spending all their time trying to "blob" their way to the next available moles to bite into. they'd be very very slow at destroying the world.
UNLESS!!!
they devised a way of transporting themselves faster, perhaps by cooperating with one another to build themselves into a larger macrobiotic lifeform.
which is highly likely, given what these robots are doing right now in the OP's article.
(cue panic tape)

WarAdvocate wrote:In regards to special cases (such as mules)....

I included a link to the source material for a reason

waradvocate, i think i'm gonna have to say that wiki is wrong. the life=reproduction thing doesn't hold up to logic. i don't care who said it - it has to make sense, to make sense.

perhaps they are using a different nonscientific definition, or perhaps the definition is PURELY scientific and beyond my language. perhaps their definition is specifically for microbioic life. i don't know.

but until it's clarified, it's got a funky "WRONG" stamp on it in my eyes.

even if we look past MULES; the defintion still doesn't even allow for beings with eternal life - ie: ageless. if one day we find some being/s, that perhaps were created by some freak occurence, these being don't reproduce, and they also don't die of old age (thus why they will still be alive when we find them). we will not classify them as life?
sounds dumb.
i've probabaly watched too much startrek , my definition of life is perhaps rather liberal.

fourty-two

Another requirement for life would be that it can adapt over time to changes in its surroundings.

If a bunch of robots fed off of the planet and reproduced themselves at a rapid rate, wouldn't they soon become a huge spheroid of robots with a similar mass to the Earth, bound together throught their own gravity? That isn't as far-fetched as you might think: take a simple E. coli bacterium that divides once every twenty minutes, give it an unlimited food supply, and in twenty-four hours you'll have a supercolony of bacteria equal to the Earth's mass.

what would keep them together? It would ultimately be the equivalent of fracturing the earth into chunks. I think once the earth was small sized enough the one's furthest away would start getting drawn into the sun.

Actually, to really destroy the planet Earth, you'd have to not only break it into chunks, but propel these chunks away from each other at greater than their combined escape velocity. Otherwise, they'd coalesce again due to the basic law of gravity. The gravity of the Sun doesn't "suck" things in; the only way an object in orbit can collide with another is if their orbital paths collide, and this can only happen to an object in stable orbit if something adds to or takes away from its energy.

Ok, simple. One more element needs to be added to their programming: the ability to explode outwards

Having access to the Internet.

Oh, Iâ??m sorry I thought the thread was titled â??Definition of having a life.â?