Political Crossfire Forums

[Fido]

Ellron wrote: Life is anything that can sense with out one response to stimulus.

(my definition proove me wrong)

Since computers can not sense with out one response they are not life.

People say this is not true. Computers have many responses to one stimulus.

Not true. The computers response is to be random which is one response.

I am not sure any one is talking about computer viruses but me. I accept the other sort of virus as life. For one thing, it can get out of the way. I am not trying to say that moving is being. Everything is moving. Not everything is adapting in time to changes in environment.

[wormwood]

ieatfood:
Quote: please leave ad hominem attacks at home, or if you're going to do it, at least at the end of the post... :lol: If I must....
Seriously though, I didn't think that was an attack, and I certainly didn't see it as an attack with intention to discredit your argument. I thought of it more as an observation about divergent tangents in our conversations.

Quote: problems with that definition. bacterial spores don't grow, develop, reproduce, respond to stimuli, or have a metabolism. Neither do seeds. I guess they have the potential to though. But that's not in the definiton. But what about a defective seed that doesn't have the potential, but still has all the elements of a regular seed. Is that living? Personally I don't consider spores and seeds to be alive anymore than I consider an unfertilized egg to be alive.

Quote: See, the definition of life is all messed up. There is no correct definition. Life is simply whatever you want it to be because it is an artificial human definition to begin with. The same is true with good, evil, murder, and any other concept. Are you saying you can't determine a murder when you see one? Is that just a different level of cellular activity? Do you think that would hold up in court?

Quote: as for being "destructive," that has nothing to do with the definition of life. That's a completely unrelated topic Not in the context of this thread :wink:

Quote: Humans are destructive cause we are smart. It takes intelligence to be destructive. You can't expect a profoundly mentally retarded person to coordinate an invasion of another country. It seems like common sense to me. Wouldn't this mean as intelligence increases, aggression would also increase proportionally? The opposite seems to be true from my experience.

Quote: And humans aren't the only ones who are destructive. Animals kill each other for all sorts of reasons (eg to eat, to mate, etc). Killing isn't destructive? It isn't a contest. I didn't say humans were the most destructive, I was asking what our destruction was expressing about our essential humanity.

[ieatfood]

wormwood wrote:
Quote: problems with that definition. bacterial spores don't grow, develop, reproduce, respond to stimuli, or have a metabolism. Neither do seeds. I guess they have the potential to though. But that's not in the definiton. But what about a defective seed that doesn't have the potential, but still has all the elements of a regular seed. Is that living? Personally I don't consider spores and seeds to be alive anymore than I consider an unfertilized egg to be alive.

ok, so when a seed grows into a plant, then that is creating life from non-living matter? So every time a seed grows, life spontaneously arises from inanimate matter? I dont think so.

so if an unfertilized egg isn't alive, how about the cells around the egg that nurse it. Are those cells alive? Are your skin cells alive? What's the difference between skin cells and the egg cell?

wormwood wrote:
Quote: See, the definition of life is all messed up. There is no correct definition. Life is simply whatever you want it to be because it is an artificial human definition to begin with. The same is true with good, evil, murder, and any other concept. Are you saying you can't determine a murder when you see one? Is that just a different level of cellular activity? Do you think that would hold up in court?

well it depends on what the context is. If you're trying to determine whether something is "murder" or not as a matter of definition, then it is pointless. If you're trying to define murder for some greater purpose (such as in a court of law), then it has a point. So why are we trying to define life? What's the purpose?

As I have shown, no definition of life is logically sound. All definitions have flaws. As to what will hold up in court, that is for a judge to decide, not me.

wormwood wrote:
Quote: Humans are destructive cause we are smart. It takes intelligence to be destructive. You can't expect a profoundly mentally retarded person to coordinate an invasion of another country. It seems like common sense to me. Wouldn't this mean as intelligence increases, aggression would also increase proportionally? The opposite seems to be true from my experience.

no. the point is, you need to be intelligent to be able to destroy things. You can't stab someone with a knife if you dont know how to make a knife. Most animals can only use their bodies as weapons. That limits their destructive capability. We humans have so many more destructive options because we are smarter than animals.


wormwood wrote:
Quote: And humans aren't the only ones who are destructive. Animals kill each other for all sorts of reasons (eg to eat, to mate, etc). Killing isn't destructive? It isn't a contest. I didn't say humans were the most destructive, I was asking what our destruction was expressing about our essential humanity.

yes--but our essential humanity is not to destroy things. Our essential humanity is to be selfish. All babies are born selfish--they care about no one but themselves. All men are selfish--we all spend 95% of our time thinking about ourselves and our desires. Destruction is simply a means to an end, the end being the fulfillment of our selfish wants. It's really quite simple. We destroy things to get what we want. Isn't that obvious?

[wormwood]

Quote: ok, so when a seed grows into a plant, then that is creating life from non-living matter? So every time a seed grows, life spontaneously arises from inanimate matter? I dont think so. It's potential. Once it's germinated it has the elements of life, until then, not so much.

Quote: so if an unfertilized egg isn't alive, how about the cells around the egg that nurse it. Are those cells alive? Are your skin cells alive? What's the difference between skin cells and the egg cell? Think about a chicken egg. Is that alive before it's fertilized? You can put all of the proteins necessary for life together, yet they do not constitute a living being.

Quote: well it depends on what the context is. If you're trying to determine whether something is "murder" or not as a matter of definition, then it is pointless. If you're trying to define murder for some greater purpose (such as in a court of law), then it has a point. So why are we trying to define life? What's the purpose? Because I was asking if humans had created purely destructive life and if computers could be considered life. If this is our first breakthrough in artificial life, what does it say of our future? If we could create a being as smarts as or smarter than we are what would it create? That type of thing.

Quote: no. the point is, you need to be intelligent to be able to destroy things. You can't stab someone with a knife if you dont know how to make a knife. False. I have no idea how to make a knife from scratch, and I am quite capable of stabbing.

Quote: Most animals can only use their bodies as weapons. That limits their destructive capability. We humans have so many more destructive options because we are smarter than animals. We have more options because we are smarter yes, but to use those options, especially without considering long term consequence, seems to be a sign of deficient intelligence.

Quote: yes--but our essential humanity is not to destroy things. Our essential humanity is to be selfish. All babies are born selfish--they care about no one but themselves. All men are selfish--we all spend 95% of our time thinking about ourselves and our desires. Destruction is simply a means to an end, the end being the fulfillment of our selfish wants. It's really quite simple. We destroy things to get what we want. Isn't that obvious? Perhaps. In the general sense, what you say makes sense, but in this specific case it doesn't really seem to apply. How can creating a computer virus, be an act of selfishness? What did the creator have to gain?

[Fido]

wormwood wrote: Quote: ok, so when a seed grows into a plant, then that is creating life from non-living matter? So every time a seed grows, life spontaneously arises from inanimate matter? I dont think so. It's potential. Once it's germinated it has the elements of life, until then, not so much.

Quote: so if an unfertilized egg isn't alive, how about the cells around the egg that nurse it. Are those cells alive? Are your skin cells alive? What's the difference between skin cells and the egg cell? Think about a chicken egg. Is that alive before it's fertilized? You can put all of the proteins necessary for life together, yet they do not constitute a living being.

Quote: well it depends on what the context is. If you're trying to determine whether something is "murder" or not as a matter of definition, then it is pointless. If you're trying to define murder for some greater purpose (such as in a court of law), then it has a point. So why are we trying to define life? What's the purpose? Because I was asking if humans had created purely destructive life and if computers could be considered life. If this is our first breakthrough in artificial life, what does it say of our future? If we could create a being as smarts as or smarter than we are what would it create? That type of thing.

Quote: no. the point is, you need to be intelligent to be able to destroy things. You can't stab someone with a knife if you dont know how to make a knife. False. I have no idea how to make a knife from scratch, and I am quite capable of stabbing.

Quote: Most animals can only use their bodies as weapons. That limits their destructive capability. We humans have so many more destructive options because we are smarter than animals. We have more options because we are smarter yes, but to use those options, especially without considering long term consequence, seems to be a sign of deficient intelligence.

Quote: yes--but our essential humanity is not to destroy things. Our essential humanity is to be selfish. All babies are born selfish--they care about no one but themselves. All men are selfish--we all spend 95% of our time thinking about ourselves and our desires. Destruction is simply a means to an end, the end being the fulfillment of our selfish wants. It's really quite simple. We destroy things to get what we want. Isn't that obvious? Perhaps. In the general sense, what you say makes sense, but in this specific case it doesn't really seem to apply. How can creating a computer virus, be an act of selfishness? What did the creator have to gain?

Have you ever considered the similarity between an unfertilized egg and a single human being? All we have as human beings is the potential others give to us. We are not complete as a life form the way some trees can be, or microbes. We cannot self fertilize. We are social, and that is our nature. Our separate lives confuse us on the question of our common nature. We do not live as individuals because we cannot reproduce as individuals. We must socialize to sexualize, and to keep life alive. Life as a quality is eternal. If it dies with us it never was. The death of an only child is the death of the parents. Life is given or received, but cannot be held except as a transitional state between receiving and giving. Those are the biological facts of life. It is our biology that accounts for our psychology. We are intellectually creative because of the frustrated need to reproduce -that would be natural, but is made unnatural by our conception of individual life.

[Geronimo]

I think this question's answer is only in the eye of the beholder. Since a virus can react to its environment, whether a human body or AI, I think that it must be stimulated, so it must be alive to some extent.

[Fido]

Geronimo wrote: I think this question's answer is only in the eye of the beholder. Since a virus can react to its environment, whether a human body or AI, I think that it must be stimulated, so it must be alive to some extent.

You are confusing a characteristic of life -movement, or reaction- with life itself, which has many characteristics the most essential of which is immortality. I know it sounds strange, but for all practical purposes we evolved from a far distant starting point chronologically, and that life still exists within us. Our particular portion of that life has potential for immortality. Compared to us, a natural virus has no less life. A computer virus as an extension of our lives has no life, and a limited utility.

[wormwood]

Quote: Have you ever considered the similarity between an unfertilized egg and a single human being? All we have as human beings is the potential others give to us. We are not complete as a life form the way some trees can be, or microbes. We cannot self fertilize. We are social, and that is our nature. Our separate lives confuse us on the question of our common nature. We do not live as individuals because we cannot reproduce as individuals. We must socialize to sexualize, and to keep life alive. Life as a quality is eternal. If it dies with us it never was. The death of an only child is the death of the parents. Life is given or received, but cannot be held except as a transitional state between receiving and giving. Those are the biological facts of life. It is our biology that accounts for our psychology. We are intellectually creative because of the frustrated need to reproduce -that would be natural, but is made unnatural by our conception of individual life. Interesting ideas.It is reminiscent of Lao Tzu, life is like water and we are merely vessels. Still, in the immediate sense, one does not have to be sexual to live. There are monks who were celibate, yet we know they lived because of the mark they made on history.

Quote: Compared to us, a natural virus has no less life. A computer virus as an extension of our lives has no life, and a limited utility All creatures have limited utility. Also, we created an artificial reality (computers) for these viruses. In this host environment, they function the same way an organic virus would. True no organic creature could catch this virus, but how is this different than a virus that attacks or effects only one species?

[bla bla]

OP wrote: I think computer viruses should count as life. Maybe it says something about human nature, that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. Talk about creating life in our own image. I shall return to electronic forms of life later on.


I doubt very much viruses were the first self replicating app. in the
history of computer code.

The comment on human nature part is a bit shaky.

[Fido]

Quote: wormwood wrote: Quote: Have you ever considered the similarity between an unfertilized egg and a single human being? All we have as human beings is the potential others give to us. We are not complete as a life form the way some trees can be, or microbes. We cannot self fertilize. We are social, and that is our nature. Our separate lives confuse us on the question of our common nature. We do not live as individuals because we cannot reproduce as individuals. We must socialize to sexualize, and to keep life alive. Life as a quality is eternal. If it dies with us it never was. The death of an only child is the death of the parents. Life is given or received, but cannot be held except as a transitional state between receiving and giving. Those are the biological facts of life. It is our biology that accounts for our psychology. We are intellectually creative because of the frustrated need to reproduce -that would be natural, but is made unnatural by our conception of individual life. Interesting ideas.It is reminiscent of Lao Tzu, life is like water and we are merely vessels. Still, in the immediate sense, one does not have to be sexual to live. There are monks who were celibate, yet we know they lived because of the mark they made on history.

Much as I said; the frustrated need to reproduce often brings out other forms of creativity. Often, people who cannot pass on their lives want to make a contribution to all life.

Quote: Quote: Compared to us, a natural virus has no less life. A computer virus as an extension of our lives has no life, and a limited utility All creatures have limited utility. Also, we created an artificial reality (computers) for these viruses. In this host environment, they function the same way an organic virus would. True no organic creature could catch this virus, but how is this different than a virus that attacks or effects only one species?

Some people might look askance at you for considering even the utility of animals (let alone human animals), since that should be a quality of what we produce: our tools. That does sort of define us. But then there is the toy, which if done right has no specific utility beyond acceleration down a stair. They have a utility for that purpose.

[anselfir]

File this one with the free will thing. you dont really know

[Fido]

oneofthem wrote: File this one with the free will thing. you dont really know

I know.

[anselfir]

you believe you know. which is itself an observed state of things, but does not mean much in this discussion.

[Fido]

anselfir wrote: you believe you know. which is itself an observed state of things, but does not mean much in this discussion.

No. I know. I have spent my life trying to grasp some knowledge by the short end, and I have. But, what fails me is my ability to communicate.

[anselfir]

Well, that, and your knowledge of it is contingent on many things beyond your grasp. For something undefined like human nature (you are born without a definition of it) it is iimpossible to know it. What are you knowing, a form behind a phenomenon, composed of a series of actions. But even to you, this form remains undefined, as you cannot state what it is, even to yourself. That tenuous hold by the conscious intelligence is not knowing, much less knowing a specific things like "human nature".

Anyways, for me to state this simply, along with the free will problem, is that one can only observe empirically one's actions and feelings, not where they come from. That chain of causation will lead you to unconsciousness.

[Fido]

anselfir wrote: Well, that, and your knowledge of it is contingent on many things beyond your grasp. For something undefined like human nature (you are born without a definition of it) it is iimpossible to know it. What are you knowing, a form behind a phenomenon, composed of a series of actions. But even to you, this form remains undefined, as you cannot state what it is, even to yourself. That tenuous hold by the conscious intelligence is not knowing, much less knowing a specific things like "human nature".

Anyways, for me to state this simply, along with the free will problem, is that one can only observe empirically one's actions and feelings, not where they come from. That chain of causation will lead you to unconsciousness.

You are confusing the ability to express a truth with the knowledge of it. I know some things. But if we talk of something I don't know, and cannot express, like Music then I might agree. If I recognize a piece of music, and recognize it from the first chord, and could sing the words, and tell you if a single note was out of place; then I might say I know it. But I do not know it well enough to play it, or confidently enough to sing it in the street. You might say I know the form rather than being able to use the form.

When it comes to human nature, it may seem like something different to each of us, but that part we know intimately. If we are like the blind men and the elephant, each seeing a part instead of the whole, then we are still not knowing a form. Only when one forms a concept of the whole through some parts does one know a form. My understanding of human nature is based upon extensive reading, but not so much over what was read, but who I read. I have read lots of books, but I do not really read books so much as people. I have been in my skin phenomenally, so to speak, long enough to have changed that skin many times. At all times in my life I have been engaged, relating, observing, interacting, and living with people, and I have been conscious from a very young age to an advanced middle age. Humanity has helped by being, in general, very intransigent. We change our circumstances rather than ourselves. Even when we project ourselves into the future in fantasy or science fiction we cannot conceive of changing. One word you could hang on almost the whole of humanity at any stage of development from primitive to modern, or young to old is -fear- of change. Yet change is reality, and so our nature is doing against our will. Our nature is animal, our reality is human, at every step, against our will.

[anselfir]

Well, I dont think i was only talking about communicating the idea, but both in the uncertain relation between observation and "reality of form" and also in definitions. The former is more highlighted, given the fact that when tracing causality of the mind, one will come into the dilemma that the mind is not continuous, but works in sparks, and these sparks just exist. Also, in making a decision, you will not consider your "free will" against your "nature," and come up with a conscious decision. You will only feel certain things, and then come to a conclusion in an instant(if this is a process, then it has many instantaneous steps that you cannot probe further into). How to define these feelings, even to yourself, I do not see a clear way of doing it. Surely one can observe that, after some consideration, a decision was made on the flesh, or on the spirit, but that process still cannot let you examine particular feelings and put them into categories, or rather, these categories are not defined by the feelings, but by certain stereotypes that are not relevant to the truth. The very idea of there exist some sort of true form behind feelings is difficult to define. As for thoughts, one cannot examine them entirely. One may do the thought process over again, and examine the details, but whether these thoughts are free, or are they influenced by some other factor, one cannot know. The only fact is that these thoughts occured.

So, in case i wasn't being clear, very likely, I'm saying that there is some other limiting factors other than the relativity of form that prevents one from distinguishing feelings, and also thoughts(this i feel quite secure about, feelings....have to think more on this). I guess this is because one can only observe the mind by its consequences.

I would say something like human nature is better described as a probabilistic or statistical thing, although speculations on it is still intriguing and a worthy thing.


"Even when we project ourselves into the future in fantasy or science fiction we cannot conceive of changing."
A good observation, and it is a statistical one. I could say that this means that we cannot conceive of changing some parts of our desires, memory and/or logic. There is no way for you to know which one it is that sparked that thought that sped along from nothingness and faded into nothingness.


In any case, I consider my idea on this subject incomplete, or at least I'm not seeing it in an elegant way. I will think of this later.