Can a robot be called as Living thing?

  • Thread starter scienceisbest
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Robot
In summary, a machine that could reproduce itself would not be easy, but it is theoretically possible. It seems that life is complex and undefined, which may be why it is difficult to agree on a definition.
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #72
Grimstone said:
http://gizmodo.com/5704158/nasa-finds-new-life
so I'm not just spouting my thoughts.
I do agree with your view, and I have advocate why. But please don't put this in support of it: the probability of ******** is one the highest I saw published in a peer-review paper.
 
Last edited:
  • #73
Grimstone said:
Data on star treck was an android
who could eat and excrete.
could breath (movement to simulate)


Yes. According to our definition, Data (on Star Trek :grumpy:) is not alive.

Also, I'm not sure if he eats and excretes for real, or if he only simulates these activities.
Also, he does not grow (except mentally).

And most importantly, he cannot reproduce. Data is an artifact; he was constructed and there is no method for making a reproduction of himself (not even his creator - though he could (and did) manually reconstruct another).

Data is a machine - a very life-like one - but a machine nonetheless.

Note that "looking for Datas" on distant planets would be equivalent to looking for alien technology like buildings or spaceships on distant planets. What we want to find is Data's creators - that's seeking life.
 
  • #74
Grimstone said:
sorry forgot this.
http://gizmodo.com/5704158/nasa-finds-new-life
so I'm not just spouting my thoughts.

What a sensationalist article.

"...unlike anything currently living in planet Earth..." :uhh:

"...a bacteria whose DNA is completely alien to what we know today, working differently than the rest of the organisms in the planet..." :uhh:

"...Instead of using phosphorus, the newly discovered microorganism ... uses the poisonous arsenic for its building blocks..." :uhh: :uhh:

"... this breaks our ideas on how life can be created ..." :uhh:
 
Last edited:
  • #75
DaveC426913 said:
What a sensationalist article.

"...unlike anything currently living in planet Earth..." :uhh:

"...a bacteria whose DNA is completely alien to what we know today, working differently than the rest of the organisms in the planet..." :uhh:

"...Instead of using phosphorus, the newly discovered microorganism ... uses the poisonous arsenic for its building blocks..." :uhh: :uhh:

"... this breaks our ideas on how life can be created ..." :uhh:

This is typical of reporting. I guess its a lesson not to take news seriously all the time (except maybe for the weather). I saw this on a another thread " PATIENT CURED OF HIV". when we go into the details, its not as one would have expected.
 
  • #76
thorium1010 said:
This is typical of reporting.
Maybe. But, at least for this time, it's not fair to complain about reporters.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2010/12/01/science.1197258.abstract

I'm not saying we should not complain. :uhh:
 
  • #77
Lievo said:
Maybe. But, at least for this time, it's not fair to complain about reporters.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2010/12/01/science.1197258.abstract

I'm not saying we should not complain. :uhh:

The finding of arsenic based life is not a radical shift from what is known by biologists. The study is just that life is able to adapt even in hostile conditions. This does not in anyway change the definition or what we call life. In fact life is complex chemistry. But there are restrictions for what type of complex chemistry it can be.
 
  • #78
thorium1010 said:
The finding of arsenic based life is not a radical shift from what is known by biologists.
I strongly disagree. Arsenic is clearly not something you could have expect to integrate DNA. This would implicates profound changes in the metabolism and even worst, in the genomic stability. So no there is no way to qualify this tentative finding as expected. The fact that this finding was not proven and is probably wrong does not make it standard.

thorium1010 said:
The study is just that life is able to adapt even in hostile conditions.
I do agree we this interpretation. The fact is: we already knew it. :rolleyes:
 
  • #79
Lievo said:
Arsenic is clearly not something you could have expect to integrate DNA. . .

I Don,t have access to the entire article . Its not exactly sure what type of molecules have substituted phosphate for arsenate.

which substitutes arsenic for phosphorus to sustain its growth. Our data show evidence for arsenate in macromolecules that normally contain phosphate, most notably nucleic acids and proteins. Exchange of one of the major bioelements may have profound evolutionary and geochemical significance.
This would implicates profound changes in the metabolism and even worst, in the genomic stability

The finding only proves to show that there can be substitutes for what was thought to be the norm (rest of the chemistry remains the same like carbon, hydrogen , oxygen, nitrogen) i.e. phosphate.In fact there has been an idea by biologists that carbon can be substituted for silicon.
 
  • #80
thorium1010 said:
Its not exactly sure what type of molecules have substituted phosphate for arsenate.
Nucleic acids refers to DNA (Desoxyribo- Nucleic Acid). It could have referred to RNA too (Ribo Nucleic Acid) but in this paper this is about DNA.

thorium1010 said:
The finding only proves to show that there can be substitutes for what was thought to be the norm (rest of the chemistry remains the same like carbon, hydrogen , oxygen, nitrogen) i.e. phosphate.
For proteins, we could imagine that things would remain as usual even if some arsenate was included in some protein, for exemple the way hemoglobin includes iron. This would be new proteins, and maybe someone will find some applications so as to become richer than Bill Gate. Boring.

But not for DNA, where the arsenate would have to replace phosphate. Arsenate does not have exactly the same chemical properties as phosphate (in fact, that why it's toxic). So if you destabilize the DNA by putting arsenate instead of phosphate at some places, you can expect that will change the genomic expression: instead of a given standard mRNA, this will produce several chains or a shorter one, leading to different amino acid chains, then different proteins, and most likely no functionnal ones.

To prevent this (so that the cell survives), you have to imagine a yet completely unknown mechanism by which either the arsenate always go on non functionnnal DNA, or a mechanism able to repair these problems. In both cases, this would implicate a completely different mechanism as the ones we know, and that's why it would have been a striking result: you can't find new mechanisms regarding DNA and expect it to be boring.

thorium1010 said:
In fact there has been an idea by biologists that carbon can be substituted for silicon.
This would necessitate a completely different form of life. We can imagine, but chemists are skeptical that silicon can lead to a biochemistry as rich as carbon do. Most would however agree that this statement is valid for our conditions of pressure and temperature. For an other range of pressure and temperature, let's recognize our quite complete ignorance.
 
  • #81
Archosaur said:
Here's a sort of thought experiment:
If a person has a prosthetic leg, is he still human? Of course!
What if he has two prosthetic legs?
Two prosthetic legs and an artificial heart?
What if every organ is replaced with a mechanical substitute, even the brain, the contents of which are "downloaded" into a network with transistors instead of neurons?

After which gradual step is he suddenly no longer human?

the questions WAS, Life.
now the question becomes human?

once the brain is replaced. that thing is n o longer a human. it could be programed to act as human as it can but it is not human.


is it alive? debatable.
 
  • #82
So we have 6 pages of highly intelligent humans talking together to come to a mutual conclusion of a question.

and the answer is?



?
 
  • #83
Grimstone said:
So we have 6 pages of highly intelligent humans talking together to come to a mutual conclusion of a question.

and the answer is?



?

Yeah, "?" sounds about right. Let's come to a consensus about whether or not a virus is alive before we start tackling absurdly complex constructions.


...What did you expect?
 
  • #84
This question belongs in the philosophy forum, not biology. Langauge follows reality, not the other way around.
 
  • #85
I disagree. While this is a philosophical question, I'd rather hear what biologists have to say than philosophers.
 
  • #86
Pythagorean said:
I disagree. While this is a philosophical question, I'd rather hear what biologists have to say than philosophers.

Biologists can discuss this in the philosophy forum just as philosophical questions re physics are discussed in the "new improved" philosophy forum now. In any case, it's for the mentors to decide. I'm just giving my opinion.

As I said, language follows reality. The reality for biologists is described by the language of biology. It's not clear to me that this language describes robots or the human-robot distinction. Until such time as this is part of biological science, it should not be a subject of discussion in this forum IMO. We've already had over 80 posts and gotten nowhere.
 
  • #87
SW VandeCarr said:
Biologists can discuss this in the philosophy forum just as philosophical questions re physics are discussed in the "new improved" philosophy forum now. In any case, it's for the mentors to decide.

in theory they could, in practice they don't

I'm just giving my opinion.

me too

We've already had over 80 posts and gotten nowhere.

that's because the biologists answer is "we don't know". Philosophy forum won't be any more productive. To speak in generalities, experimental biologists can articulate the question into falsifiable experiments, which is stimulating to theoretical biologists.

It's already been hinted at that we still have trouble with defining life when it comes to a known candidate: viruses.

I would think a more general, abstract framework (such as information theory) might have something to say about defining life, too.
 
  • #88
I don't believe we can AFFORD to believe that these are questions only for philosophers, or they're going to be alone in this thinking when scientists are called to testify and help make these determinations.

"What is life" is philosophical, but how to define a machine with as much or greater complexity than its builders strikes me as something that could be practical.

And no... I'm not saying we're on the brink of "Judgement Day", just that the same reasoning is going to be applied to cloning and other issue.

It's called: "Bio-ethics", and I'd say this falls into the biology side if we stick with the OP.
 
  • #89
nismaratwork said:
I don't believe we can AFFORD to believe that these are questions only for philosophers, or they're going to be alone in this thinking when scientists are called to testify and help make these determinations.

Who said these type of questions are only for philosophers? I didn't. I said this was a philosophical question. The scientific answer to the OP's question is "no". The biological definition of life is narrow and focused: RNA, DNA based replicating organisms including viruses. Prions are borderline, but are studied by biologists because they are replicating proteins and interact with living systems. Beyond this we get into opinions and speculation.

The ethical questions that might arise with intelligent robots certainly are important philosophical questions deserving serious discussion. Should a science forum deal with ethics (other than perhaps the ethics of practicing science)? I don't think so, but that doesn't mean scientists shouldn't get involved.
 
Last edited:
  • #90
SW VandeCarr said:
The scientific answer to the OP's question is "no". The biological definition of life is narrow and focused: RNA, DNA based replicating organisms including viruses.
You're illustrating a point I made earlier that the scientific definition may change if we face a robot that our brain will obviously consider alive. I was answered that the biological definition of life is narrow and focused. And excluded viruses. :redface:
 
  • #91
Lievo said:
You're illustrating a point I made earlier that the scientific definition may change if we face a robot that our brain will obviously consider alive. I was answered that the biological definition of life is narrow and focused. And excluded viruses. :redface:

Even if you choose to consider viruses as non-living, they are RNA and DNA based replicating entities which interact with cell-based life to such an extent that no biologist would deny they are proper, in fact essential, subjects in the study of living systems.
 
Last edited:
  • #92
SW VandeCarr said:
Even if you choose to consider viruses as non-living, they are RNA and DNA based replicating entities which interact with cell-based life to such an extent that no biologist would deny they are proper, in fact essential, subjects in the study of living systems.
You don't get my point. This is not my choice, but that was the choice of most biologists before the mimiviruses (I'm not sure of the present concensus). I'm just stating this an example that what we call scientific definition is obviously subject to change. Thus, when you argue that robots are not defined as living form, I'm not arguing this is not the present definition. I'm just underling that this definition may well change in the future, as it did before (at least for a couple of biologist, including me).
 
  • #93
SW VandeCarr said:
Who said these type of questions are only for philosophers? I didn't. I said this was a philosophical question. The scientific answer to the OP's question is "no". The biological definition of life is narrow and focused: RNA, DNA based replicating organisms including viruses. Prions are borderline, but are studied by biologists because they are replicating proteins and interact with living systems. Beyond this we get into opinions and speculation.

The ethical questions that might arise with intelligent robots certainly are important philosophical questions deserving serious discussion. Should a science forum deal with ethics (other than perhaps the ethics of practicing science)? I don't think so, but that doesn't mean scientists shouldn't get involved.

SW VandeCarr said:
his question belongs in the philosophy forum, not biology. Langauge follows reality, not the other way around.

Huh, that seems fairly clear cut, and beyond that I'm not going on a tangent of a tangent... this isn't GD. If you want to scuttle the thread, do it alone.
 
  • #94
Lievo said:
You don't get my point. This is not my choice, but that was the choice of most biologists before the mimiviruses (I'm not sure of the present concensus). I'm just stating this an example that what we call scientific definition is obviously subject to change. Thus, when you argue that robots are not defined as living form, I'm not arguing this is not the present definition. I'm just underling that this definition may well change in the future, as it did before (at least for a couple of biologist, including me).

OK. But there's a difference between saying 'a virus is alive' and a virus is 'an RNA,DNA based replicating entity'. The former might be subject to change, but the latter is just a fact. I'm not saying that science forum discussions ought to only discuss facts, but they should stay within the bounds of accepted theory and conventions surrounding those facts. It probably doesn't matter that much whether you want consider viruses as alive or not as long as you accept the objective knowledge regarding viruses and their importance in biology.
 
  • #95
SW VandeCarr said:
OK. But there's a difference between saying 'a virus is alive' and a virus is 'an RNA,DNA based replicating entity'. The former might be subject to change, but the latter is just a fact. I'm not saying that science forum discussions ought to only discuss facts, but they should stay within the bounds of accepted theory and conventions surrounding those facts. It probably doesn't matter that much whether you want consider viruses as alive or not as long as you accept the objective knowledge regarding viruses and their importance in biology.

The latter is only true if they have a host to follow instructions and replicate. Ever see a "brick" of amplified Ebola?... not exactly alive if you take it out of its element.

Anyway, as the beginning of this thread proposed self-replicating machines, viruses are simply not included, de facto.
 
  • #96
SW VandeCarr said:
there's a difference between saying 'a virus is alive' and a virus is 'an RNA,DNA based replicating entity'. The former might be subject to change, but the latter is just a fact.
Sure! But why do you think it can change?
 
  • #97
Lievo said:
Sure! But why do you think it can change?

I believe the answer to that would be skirting the definitions between alive and sentient.

To be alive, would not the subject need to be sentient as well?
 
  • #98
scienceisbest said:
Can a self replicating, or self growing robot (programmed to make logical decisions) can be called as Living thing?

If not, what is the definition of living thing?

I stand on the answer of no. the robot would not be alive. as it is not sientient. you could program it to be (to a point) self aware.

but you have me whooped on
scienceisbest said:
If not, what is the definition of living thing?
 
  • #99
What if in the future we can control cells that already exist and give (take from) them the genes (and regulatory DNA) we want? And construct cell networks and get them to differentiate and reproduce in our own novel way? Then start selecting for human usefulness (while still experimenting with bio-engineering)?
 
  • #100
Pythagorean said:
And construct cell networks and get them to differentiate and reproduce in our own novel way? Then start selecting for human usefulness (while still experimenting with bio-engineering)?

Ah eugenics :P Hitler was a big fan.
 
  • #101
DanP said:
Ah eugenics :P Hitler was a big fan.

Everyone is a fan in theory, it's the practice that makes monsters.
 
  • #102
we are not defining alive with "what if's".
 
  • #103
Grimstone said:
we are not defining alive with "what if's".

We define everything in those terms.
 
  • #104
I do not agree. We do not define knowledge with "what it" we define it with facts, proven and re-creatable data that is as close to irrefutable as possible.

the "what ifs" are what causes science to look for the facts to prove or disprove it.

The truth is. we need the What ifs, they help the sturdy minded, non free thinking, humans to look outside the box.
 
  • #105
Grimstone said:
I do not agree. We do not define knowledge with "what it" we define it with facts, proven and re-creatable data that is as close to irrefutable as possible.

the "what ifs" are what causes science to look for the facts to prove or disprove it.

The truth is. we need the What ifs, they help the sturdy minded, non free thinking, humans to look outside the box.

Then by all means, tell me how you prove an artificial construct for humans to demarcate something that only matters to us?

The truth may be, but we deal with theories, all of which are wrong... and that's not my original thinking there. In a science as far from physics as biology, you begin to tread the waters between science and art.
 
<h2>1. Can a robot be considered a living thing?</h2><p>No, a robot cannot be considered a living thing because it does not possess the characteristics of life, such as the ability to reproduce, grow, and respond to stimuli.</p><h2>2. Can a robot have emotions like a living being?</h2><p>No, a robot cannot have emotions like a living being because emotions are a complex human experience that requires consciousness and self-awareness, which robots do not possess.</p><h2>3. Can a robot die or have a lifespan?</h2><p>No, a robot cannot die or have a lifespan because it is not a living being. It is a machine that can be repaired or replaced, but it does not have a biological lifespan.</p><h2>4. Can a robot evolve or adapt to its environment?</h2><p>No, a robot cannot evolve or adapt to its environment like living beings do. Robots are designed and programmed by humans and can only perform tasks within their programmed capabilities.</p><h2>5. Can a robot have consciousness or self-awareness?</h2><p>No, a robot cannot have consciousness or self-awareness because these are unique human qualities that involve complex brain functions and emotions. Robots are not capable of experiencing consciousness or self-awareness.</p>

1. Can a robot be considered a living thing?

No, a robot cannot be considered a living thing because it does not possess the characteristics of life, such as the ability to reproduce, grow, and respond to stimuli.

2. Can a robot have emotions like a living being?

No, a robot cannot have emotions like a living being because emotions are a complex human experience that requires consciousness and self-awareness, which robots do not possess.

3. Can a robot die or have a lifespan?

No, a robot cannot die or have a lifespan because it is not a living being. It is a machine that can be repaired or replaced, but it does not have a biological lifespan.

4. Can a robot evolve or adapt to its environment?

No, a robot cannot evolve or adapt to its environment like living beings do. Robots are designed and programmed by humans and can only perform tasks within their programmed capabilities.

5. Can a robot have consciousness or self-awareness?

No, a robot cannot have consciousness or self-awareness because these are unique human qualities that involve complex brain functions and emotions. Robots are not capable of experiencing consciousness or self-awareness.

Similar threads

  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
832
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
627
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
7
Views
948
Replies
51
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • DIY Projects
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top