Can a robot be called as Living thing?

[Noesis]

Your viewpoint ignores the idea that new additions can be imbued with identity once added.

i.e. if half the planks on Theseus' ship are replaced with new planks, it does not follow that only half the ship is Theseus' ship; it is more reasonable that the new planks are inaugerated into the "Theseus' Ship Club".

You're right, I was unclear. I was considering the question raised by Archosaur yet addressing it in reference to the Theseus Paradox, which is different. I had the 'subtractive concept' in mind.

I don't think this will work. I would not have to remove many pieces from a computer program for it to stop working. In fact, the removal of a single character - virtually any single character I might care to choose - is quite likely to be fatal. I would then erroneously conclude that that single character is the most important component in the program.

Likewise, I would not have to remove many components of a human for it to stop working too. I cannot thus conclude that the particular component I last removed is the difference between life and death.

Same would likely apply to consciousness.

Thus is the nature of complex, interdependent systems. I think these are excellent examples of 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts'.

The conclusion would be unsubstantiated since all that is possible to conclude is that the single character is an integral part of the program, certainly not the most important. Removal of any character would yield the same conclusion. But your point is duly noted: this instrument is not sharp enough to isolate relative importance or causation, it can only correlate what is necessary for proper function in a particular instance.

I don't see why we couldn't remove 'pieces' of the brain until we were able to identify the minimum material necessary in order to have consciousness. If consciousness still exists with something missing, then whatever is missing wasn't necessary for consciousness. An implicit assumption here is that consciousness is binary, or that we have some mechanism for 'measuring consciousness.' But again, the same problem occurs since the system would likely collapse before we were able to glean any significant data. And perhaps even more problematic, the data would all be correlative: I might conclude arms are necessary for consciousness if I lop one off, but its really blood perfusion that I should be considering, etc. However, the technique can have merit: brain ablations and recently transgenic mice have proven very insightful into understanding various systems.

I think the main hindrance to the consciousness problem is our resolution and the vast amount of possible permutations of removals. The inverse problem would be to build consciousness from the molecular level, and it comes with similar problems.

A reductionist perspective can't hope to understand systems where the 'whole is greater than the part sum' only if it reduces too far. This fact certainly limits the efficacy of reductionist technique, but it can at least serve to realize what portions of a system exhibit emergent properties due to interacting components.

To be clear, I think the idea is almost embarrassingly simple: remove things until it breaks and then infer that in some form whatever was just removed is necessary. It lacks discriminatory power, e.g., the program example, but it can be used to solve problems. And finally, it is related philosophically to what the existence of things means and makes us be a bit more careful regarding the definitions we use--something that seems to be happening with our definition of life.

 

[Noesis]

To comment on the question posed:

Absolutely, as long as it meets the given criteria for life, which is why we're struggling to come up with one. I think an equally valid question that would shed light on this one is:

Can a living thing be called a robot? I think so.

 

[bobze]

To comment on the question posed:

Absolutely, as long as it meets the given criteria for life, which is why we're struggling to come up with one. I think an equally valid question that would shed light on this one is:

Can a living thing be called a robot? I think so.

Insert crude jokes here :rofl:

 

[Newai]

To comment on the question posed:

Absolutely, as long as it meets the given criteria for life, which is why we're struggling to come up with one. I think an equally valid question that would shed light on this one is:

Can a living thing be called a robot? I think so.

Maybe this would help. As summarized at Wikipedia based on the Science article:

Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possesses a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations.

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

Go ahead and call a robot a living thing. Might be problematic, though.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't see why we couldn't remove 'pieces' of the brain until we were able to identify the minimum material necessary in order to have consciousness.

In a sense, we can. Go down the ladder of complex lifeforms: chimps, dogs, rodents, lizards, etc. Which one is not conscious?


But again, this is tangential to the question of life.

 

[DaveC426913]

That isn't to say that our definition of life is the definition of life...

:uhh: as opposed to whose?

 

[DaveC426913]

Maybe this would help. As summarized at Wikipedia based on the Science article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

That was where I started in post 4.

 

[bobze]

:uhh: as opposed to whose?

Natures', silly

 

[DaveC426913]

Natures', silly

I assume you're kidding, but in case you're not:

Nature who? Who has this definition of life?

 

[bobze]

I assume you're kidding, but in case you're not:

Nature who? Who has this definition of life?

My point was and is, there isn't a "natural law of life". The definition of life is a man-made concept thrust upon nature. Saying something like a virus isn't alive, is a consequence of the definition of life we are using. What is and is not life (in real life) isn't a black and white line, its a bunch of shades of gray.

 

[DaveC426913]

My point was and is, there isn't a "natural law of life". The definition of life is a man-made concept thrust upon nature. Saying something like a virus isn't alive, is a consequence of the definition of life we are using. What is and is not life (in real life) isn't a black and white line, its a bunch of shades of gray.

Ah. Agreed.

We impose an artifical threshold, below which we call 'not alive', above which we call 'alive'. In reality (in nature), there really is no such division.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Ah. Agreed.

We impose an artifical threshold, below which we call 'not alive', above which we call 'alive'. In reality (in nature), there really is no such division.

I also agree. We could look at at evolution in much broader terms, including a long chemical evolution which preceded the existence of the earth. The elements other than hydrogen were created in stars and seeded throughout the universe over aeons, There's evidence of carbon polymers in deep space and on many planets in our solar system. It's likely there are many billions of planets in the universe which host carbon based chemistry.

It's also true that biological evolution on Earth effectively halted for some 2 billion years with the prokaryotes. The emergence of eukaryotes may have been a very unlikely event. The prokaryotes still represent most of the Earth's biomass.

In less then a third of the Earth's lifetime, the eukaryotes have evolved to produce humans and the things humans make, like robots. Why shouldn't the things that humans make be considered a part of the ongoing chemical/material evolution of which biological evolution is a part?

In any case, it seems the mechanisms that drive biological evolution are about to be superseded if we humans manage to survive our own mistakes.

 

[Lievo]

Despite the interesting discussion above, there is several evidences that the recognition of a living form does not depend on some theoretical conceptions about what it is to be biologic. In fact, it's a neurological function involving a specific area at the temporo-occipito-parietal junction (the biological movement area).

In other words, the principles exposed by many do not come first. First we recognize some living forms using some hard-wired function we shared as human, then we find some features that are shared by all known living forms, then we pontificate about living forms needing to follow what we define as necessary to be a living form.

Virus are a good exemple. Once upon a time it was quite common to exclude it as living form. Since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimivirus" has been evidenced, many biologist become increasingly ill-at-ease with the traditional view, so the traditionnal view is progressively questionned and will maybe be changed for something else. And then we will pontificate according to the new definition.

So regarding the initial question, I'd guess that if robots can activate our hard-wired sense of a living form by displaying the appropriate behavior, yes they can.

 

[AdrianZ]

well, I think living things should be able to reproduce which our today's robots aren't able to.

 

[Archosaur]

well, I think living things should be able to reproduce which our today's robots aren't able to.

This discussion never really was about "todays robots".

 

[DaveC426913]

Despite the interesting discussion above, there is several evidences that the recognition of a living form does not depend on some theoretical conceptions about what it is to be biologic. In fact, it's a neurological function involving a specific area at the temporo-occipito-parietal junction (the biological movement area).

In other words, the principles exposed by many do not come first. First we recognize some living forms using some hard-wired function we shared as human, then we find some features that are shared by all known living forms, then we pontificate about living forms needing to follow what we define as necessary to be a living form.

Virus are a good exemple. Once upon a time it was quite common to exclude it as living form. Since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimivirus" has been evidenced, many biologist become increasingly ill-at-ease with the traditional view, so the traditionnal view is progressively questionned and will maybe be changed for something else. And then we will pontificate according to the new definition.

So regarding the initial question, I'd guess that if robots can activate our hard-wired sense of a living form by displaying the appropriate behavior, yes they can.

I find it difficult to follow the train of thought above, but I think the gist is that "life is in the eye of the behoolder".

 

[thorium1010]

Despite the interesting discussion above, there is several evidences that the recognition of a living form does not depend on some theoretical conceptions about what it is to be biologic. In fact, it's a neurological function involving a specific area at the temporo-occipito-parietal junction (the biological movement area).

Responding to this paragraph, if i read it correctly. You are defining a complex living form, not defining what is living or not. In biology definitions are very difficult, because you always find something that does not fit the entire definition but still exhibits a few properties of life (for ex : virus). So definition of life is as complex as life itself . To borrow from BOBZE,

Most biologists would classify life based loosely on the 5 principles of "biology";

1. Ability to reproduce with fidelity
2. Cell is the smallest unit
3. Convert energy from one for to another
4. Regulate internal environment
5. Evolve

I think this is broad enough definition of life.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Responding to this paragraph, if i read it correctly. You are defining a complex living form, not defining what is living or not. In biology definitions are very difficult, because you always find something that does not fit the entire definition but still exhibits a few properties of life (for ex : virus). So definition of life is as complex as life itself . To borrow from BOBZE,
I think this is broad enough definition of life.

Definitions like this are ones of convenience, which is fine; but they are subject to change and don't give any insights as to the connections between "living" systems and evolving natural processes over time or at different levels of scale

By including evolution in your definition, you are assuming this is fundamental. It is fundamental in nature over astronomical time periods but it isn't really a notable characteristic of life over intermediate time periods. Prokaryotes have not really evolved structurally in any significant way for about 3.5 billion years and they represent most of the Earth's biomass. For most of the Earth's existence prokaryotes were the only form of life on earth.

Your definition would categorically exclude self-replicating nanobots which would contain (mutable) information storage (that would allow for self-replication) because they are not made of cells. In any case, what kind of cells are you talking about?

 

[thorium1010]

Your definition would categorically exclude self-replicating nanobots which would contain (mutable) information storage (that would allow for self-replication) because they are not made of cells. In any case, what kind of cells are you talking about?

well a cell is a basic functioning unit in nature. I t interacts with environment, derives energy, maintains its internal environment and capable of self replication. yes nanobots does not fall under this definition.

The cell is the functional basic unit of life. It was discovered by Robert Hooke and is the functional unit of all known living organisms. It is the smallest unit of life that is classified as a living thing, and is often called the building block of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28biology%29"

By including evolution in your definition, you are assuming this is fundamental. It is fundamental in nature over astronomical time periods but it isn't really a notable characteristic of life over intermediate time periods. Prokaryotes have not really evolved structurally in any significant way for about 3.5 billion years and they represent most of the Earth's biomass. For most of the Earth's existence prokaryotes were the only form of life on earth.

Yes anything falling under the definition of life should evolve (however long that maybe). we cannot define life over intermediate period, it simply does not make sense .Regarding prokaryotes, what do we know about the precursors of eukaryote, it might well have been prokaryotes (so they did evolve ). Still how do we know prokaryote are the same as they were 3.5 billion years ago ?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

well a cell is a basic functioning unit in nature. I t interacts with environment, derives energy, maintains its internal environment and capable of self replication. yes nanobots does not fall under this definition.

Well, I agree nanobots, as I described them, would do not fall under the definition of a "living thing" (staying with the topic) as you described it. But is this definition helpful or even make sense? What about mitochondria? Are they alive? Leukocytes are alive but erythrocytes are not? What about multinuclear giant cells which do not follow the usual pattern of mitosis? What is your definition of a living cell? Are seeds and spores cells? Are they alive? Are spermatozoa alive?

 

[Lievo]

I find it difficult to follow the train of thought above, but I think the gist is that "life is in the eye of the behoolder".

Sorry the english was very bad. In fact, I'm there to improve it. :shy:

You are defining a complex living form, not defining what is living or not.

More precisely, I'm stating that our definition of life comes from a specialized neurological function. We all have a fusiform face area that make us feel that something is a face. We all have a biological motion area that make us feel that something is alive. So robots are not supposed to be alive according to most common definition. But if we see one that can activate our biological motion area strongly, chances are that we will just change our definition.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sorry the english was very bad. In fact, I'm there to improve it. :shy:

It's not your English; it's the logic.

More precisely, I'm stating that our definition of life comes from a specialized neurological function. We all have a fusiform face area that make us feel that something is a face. We all have a biological motion area that make us feel that something is alive. So robots are not supposed to be alive according to most common definition. But if we see one that can activate our biological motion area strongly, chances are that we will just change our definition.

It sounds to me like you're saying we just can't trust our rationality. We see what we want to see. If this were true, it would apply to any area of scientific observation. The universe is built the way it is because that's what we expect to see.

 

[Lievo]

It's not your English; it's the logic.

Sure. Thank you for the correction.

It sounds to me like you're saying we just can't trust our rationality. We see what we want to see. If this were true, it would apply to any area of scientific observation. The universe is built the way it is because that's what we expect to see.

Here you mix several interesting topics that deserve carefull scritinization. However, it's definately not what I was talking about, so let's keep that for another thread.

Maybe a straigth way to see my point is to replace life by color. Usually people think that a specific color is a light with some specific wavelength (or a specific energy distribution among frequencies). That's false. A specific color is what your brain decide to be this color. Does saying that has anything to do with rationality or science? Not at all! Look at this:

When I say that the brain decide what is the color, I'm not saying anything more that: top and bottom circles are not the same color, despite it's physically made of the very same light. If you never saw this picture before and you was believing in a strict association between color and spectral properties, then you'd have define these two circles as having the same color... which would obviously make no sense.

So, to me that's the same with robot and life. If you define life as being made of cells or with the five principles or whatever, you're at risk to one day face something that will force you to change your definition. And I'd even pretend this already occurred for many biologists the first time they faced a mimivirus.

 

[thorium1010]

Well, I agree nanobots, as I described them, would do not fall under the definition of a "living thing" (staying with the topic) as you described it. But is this definition helpful or even make sense? What about mitochondria? Are they alive?

well that's what i said, definition of life is very difficult. But we are rational beings in the sense that we can distinguish what is living or not living. The definition maybe superficial and when we go into depth or start finding things that do not fit perfectly into the definition, we either alter it or say there are exceptions.

mitochondria are organelle. Can they function independent of the cell ?

 

[Pythagorean]

Maybe a straigth way to see my point is to replace life by color. Usually people think that a specific color is a light with some specific wavelength (or a specific energy distribution among frequencies). That's false. A specific color is what your brain decide to be this color. Does saying that has anything to do with rationality or science? Not at all! Look at this:

A couple things I want to point out:

1) We can test the light objectively to see it's not the same color. We also know that, a lot of the time, our subjective measurement matches the objective measurement. Furthermore, it's difficult for somebody with all the properly functioning visual processors and receptors to mistake blue for red. It's only shades that are difficult to determine and only in specific conditions, which leads to:

2) We might understand why it is that we see like this by objectively understanding evolution. It's an obvious evolutionary advantage to be able to see hidden predators to avoid as well as hidden resources to hunt/gather. This visual processing can foil many camouflaging attempts in nature. In the end, the "flawed" micro-information actually provides more macro-information. (So you lose some information about the shade, but you gain information about your survivability in the environment, which otherwise would have gone unnoticed)

 

[Lievo]

1) We can test the light objectively to see it's not the same color.

I'm sorry, but no you can't. What you can do (and this is actually how XYZ color space was established) is to test the reaction of the brain to some light in some specific condition. If, from that experiment, you conclude that color is a property of light, then you'll come to make wrong predictions.

it's difficult for somebody with all the properly functioning visual processors and receptors to mistake blue for red.

For anyone with all the usual proprely functionning visual processors and receptors, it's very easy to see the very same light as http://www.colorcube.com/illusions/chrmadptb.htm" . Blue instead of red can be done the same way.

2) We might understand why it is that we see like this by objectively understanding evolution.

Sure. The fact that the properties of the light is not enough to know the color doesn't mean this escape physical laws. This just mean that what you really need to define color is to know how the brain construct this perception.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm sorry, but no you can't.

Of course you can. The key word was "objective", as in: not subject to the whims of the brain's interpretation.

The most obvious way of doing it is to use an instrument, such as a color densitometer.

But you could still do it (at least roughly) with your eye the same way you do any objective test: isolate the subject from background noise and other interfering variables. You could physically cut the two swatches away from their background and hold thenm side-by-side and see that they are the same (within your limits of perception).


Point of order (clarification): 'what colour is the swatch?' was proposed as analagous to: 'is it alive'. We are on a tangent, discussing whether or not the two questions are analogous. The first can be determined objectively, the second is still under debate.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Point of order (clarification): 'what colour is the swatch?' was proposed as analagous to: 'is it alive'. We are on a tangent, discussing whether or not the two questions are analogous. The first can be determined objectively, the second is still under debate.

If we accept that a defining characteristic of living things is being composed of cells, then there is no debate. Robots are not, and most likely will never be made of cells (at least not entirely in the biological sense). This whole thread is meaningless (or trivial) unless we view living systems in the larger context of systems generally and define what the special characteristics of living systems are in reference to systems in general.

 

[Lievo]

The key word was "objective", as in: not subject to the whims of the brain's interpretation.

So you're predicting that, assuming the same background, two identical lights will always be perceived as the same color.

Out of random curiosity, how many wrong prediction do you need before considering seriously that the physicalist point-of view you adopt lack soundness?
Sire, I don't want to be rude in anyway, but the fact is... I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to explain.

 

[Lievo]

If we accept that a defining characteristic of living things is being composed of cells, then there is no debate.

Sure. Still there would be at least one debate: is it a sound definition?

 

[Pythagorean]

I'm sorry, but no you can't. What you can do (and this is actually how XYZ color space was established) is to test the reaction of the brain to some light in some specific condition. If, from that experiment, you conclude that color is a property of light, then you'll come to make wrong predictions.

You're missing the point. There's an objective measurement of light that we call "color" based on its frequency. Not arguable. This is what I mean by objective color.

Human perception of color can be related directly to it by (for example) the cone sensitivity functions.

Thus, we have a bridge between objective definitions of light and human perception of light.

For anyone with all the usual proprely functionning visual processors and receptors, it's very easy to see the very same light as http://www.colorcube.com/illusions/chrmadptb.htm" . Blue instead of red can be done the same way.

Do you recognize the contradiction here? You're talking about light objectively. You're saying "somebody can see blue as red". That only makes sense if blue is objectively blue. Otherwise you may as well just claim solipsism.

But I concede that you can construct experiments where we see red and blue; your demonstration of this has proved by main point, though.

Sure. The fact that the properties of the light is not enough to know the color doesn't mean this escape physical laws. This just mean that what you really need to define color is to know how the brain construct this perception.

Which we already have a good start on understanding (I mentioned the cone sensitivity functions. Understanding the processing is still under way and has been productive).

 

[Lievo]

You're missing the point. There's an objective measurement of light that we call "color" based on its frequency. Not arguable. This is what I mean by objective color.

I promise I perfectly see your point, which is that we can objectively test the spectral properties of the light and call that objective color. All what I'm saying is that you'd better call that spectral properties. Because if you put color in the name, you will soon confound it with color, which is not the same, and that will soon make you doing wrong predictions -as the two I evidenced above.

we have a bridge between objective definitions of light and human perception of light.

Of course we have -in some specific conditions. What you would need to say, if you want to remain both objective and right while talking about color, is the following:

Given the spectral properties of this light, it's color match a specific combination of three monochromatic lights adjusted in brightness, assuming both are presented to an average quiete human on each side of his/her visual field by using two circular split screens 2 degrees in size with a black background.

This would be absolutly true, not arguable, and color. Now each time you go outside of these specific experimental conditions, you need to question if your colorimeter is still well calibrated in regard to color -of course this won't be necessary if what interests you is the spectral properties of the light.

Do you recognize the contradiction here? You're talking about light objectively. You're saying "somebody can see blue as red".

What I meant was you can see the very same light as blue or red. I think you stretching my sentence here. However, I recognize that the physicalist point-of-view is very easy to take. So maybe you'll notice some occasion on which I'll do the mistake, but that's not to say it's not a mistake ;-)

we already have a good start on understanding (I mentioned the cone sensitivity functions. Understanding the processing is still under way and has been productive).

Of course we have! How do you think I was able to find the evidences above if not from knowledge about color perception?

BTW... if I need to develop the idea again and again, then obviously the metaphor was of no help. I suggest we either stop here or continue the discussion in another thread. ;)

 

[binbots]

I was actually thinking about this question the other day. But I came at it from a different view. If we lived in space on a space ship, would that spaceship not be apart of us just as much as cells are apart of us? With out this ship we will die, and it is this relationship that makes it alive. If this ship one day became self aware it would see us building it and taken care of it. Just like we see our cells doing for us. I heard somewhere that everytime we use a tool our brain does not know the difference between the tool and your hand.
If we lived on Mars and had to wear space suits, those space suits are as real as our skin. I know this is a crack pot idea but I think our idea of what is alive and what is not is a lot more blurry than we think. The fact that our technology seems to mirror so much of our biology could mean that it is still our cells that are in charge and we (humans) are just one step in a grand machine. We are just a gap between biological and mechanical.

 

[DaveC426913]

With out this ship we will die, and it is this relationship that makes it alive.

That does not make it alive.

If we lived on Mars and had to wear space suits, those space suits are as real as our skin.

"Real" or no, they are not part of our biological system.

I know this is a crack pot idea but I think our idea of what is alive and what is not is a lot more blurry than we think.

Yes. No.


You are making the mistake of thinking a metaphorical similarity (a space suit is a skin) is equivalent to two things being the same (the Moon is a baleful eye).

 

[Grimstone]

The basis of the definition of life is:
- it eats and excretes
- respirates
- grows
- reproduces
- reacts to stimuli

There's all sorts of nuancing but it starts with those.

Ok, I know this is going to ask you to stretch here, but.
Data on star treck was an android
who could eat and excrete.
could breath (movement to simulate)

breath deep and read on.

It would be wrong of us to ONLY look for life as we know it and suspect something that is not like us, is not alive.
There are by percentage alone to many stars in the milky way alone that could "have life" and then when you consider each galaxy and the sheer number of them.

It becomes obvious that man would be totally arrogant to assume that his form alone is the only possible option. we have found life at the bottom of the ocean that feed off the thermal heat that would crispy critter us.
I understand your definition of life, its very humanist of you. but remember, we are 1. creation: made after our maker. 2. evolved: due to the stimuli of our environment.
what we are today, and will be in the future.