Should we search for non-biological "life"?

[SciencewithDrJ]

I am very interested in Astrobiology and just came across this 7-year old abstract by Seth Shostak (of SETI):

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576510002195

There is a lot of emphasis on searching for biological life outside of our solar system, especially with the abundance of "habitable zone exoplanets" discovered by Kepler.

But in view of projections that we will be able to assemble self propagating AI here on Earth in the coming few decades, wouldn't it be possible that our search may well be for extraterrestrial AI in addition to search for biological life? And if so, what would we look for, if not for biochemical signature of life?

 

[ISamson]

Good idea.

wouldn't it be possible that our search may well be for extraterrestrial AI in addition to search for biological life?

Quite possibly, but I am glad that you still mentioned "in addition".
Most of what you mentioned in your post is discussed in a book I've read 'The Future of the Mind" by Prof Michio Kaku. It is an extremely engaging book. Will answer your question.

And if so, what would we look for, if not for biochemical signature of life?

Very good question. I don't know.

 

[SciencewithDrJ]

Most of what you mentioned in your post is discussed in a book I've read 'The Future of the Mind" by Prof Michio Kaku

Many thanks. I will look for this reference.

 

[ISamson]

It is not only on the mind:
https://www.bookdepository.com/The-...473349?ref=grid-view&qid=1509239673935&sr=1-1
That's where I bought it.

 

[ISamson]

It's not the only book by this author...
:)

 

[fresh_42]

The title is a contradiction in itself. Life and biology are synonymous. We could talk about non carbon based life, but non-biological life doesn't make sense.

 

[ISamson]

The title is a contradiction in itself. Life and biology are synonymous. We could talk about non carbon based life, but non-biological life doesn't make sense.

Ha, good one. I dod not notice.

 

[SciencewithDrJ]

It's not the only book by this author...
:)

Yes, I know, I have two of books already, Physics of the Impossible, and Physics of the Future.

 

[ISamson]

Yes, I know, I have two of books already, Physics of the Impossible, and Physics of the Future.

Nice.

 

[SciencewithDrJ]

The title is a contradiction in itself. Life and biology are synonymous. We could talk about non carbon based life, but non-biological life doesn't make sense.

Life based on future conscious AI is non-biological.

 

[SciencewithDrJ]

Ha, good one. I dod not notice.

AI conscious future life would be non-biological. You will notice I put the word life in parentheses ("Life") within the title of my posting.

 

[fresh_42]

Life based on future conscious AI is non-biological.

In this case, we have to rename either life or biology. I'm quite sure the ancient Greeks haven't thought about AI. And I don't think it should be called life. AI don't have a metabolism, and oil and energy probably won't count, at least I don't consider my car engine as alive. And the intelligent part of it is debatable, too, because finally it is only especially clever programmed. Is a chess computer that learns from previous made bad moves alive? In any case, this would be a matter of philosophy. βίος, however, means life.

 

[ISamson]

I think we are discussing intelligence...
Do we know the definition of 'life'?

The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

 

[SciencewithDrJ]

In this case, we have to rename either life or biology. I'm quite sure the ancient Greeks haven't thought about AI. And I don't think it should be called life. AI don't have a metabolism, and oil and energy probably won't count, at least I don't consider my car engine as alive. And the intelligent part of it is debatable, too, because finally it is only especially clever programmed. Is a chess computer that learns from previous made bad moves alive? In any case, this would be a matter of philosophy. βίος, however, means life.

Obviously, a car engine or database or computer program are not alive because they lack to self propagate their information. There is a lot of talk about future AI with consciousness, meaning that such entities will be self aware and self replicating. That would be "life" because it passes along "information" to future generations. On Earth we have biological life based on carbon. In other worlds, there may well be non-carbon life, but still biological (meaning that it could evolve like life on Earth evolved). AI "life", on the other hand, would be of non-biological origin, but still able to pass on its information base to future generations.

The reason I posted this is to seek views and answers to my question: "wouldn't it be possible that our search may well be for extraterrestrial AI in addition to search for biological life? And if so, what would we look for, if not for biochemical signature of life?".

 

[SciencewithDrJ]

I think we are discussing intelligence...
Do we know the definition of 'life'?

Modern textbooks of Life Science define life on Earth as the property of an entity that:

(1) Has inherent information base (DNA) that is self propagating and able to pass its characteristics to future generations.
(2) It is able to accumulate raw material from its environment
(3) Generate energy from its environment
(4) Use that energy to reassemble raw material and build more copies of itself based on its information base (DNA in case of carbon-based life on Earth).

 

[ISamson]

I think we are discussing intelligence...

Or consciousness.

 

[ISamson]

(1) Has inherent information base (DNA) that is self propagating and able to pass its characteristics to future generations.
(2) It is able to accumulate raw material from its environment
(3) Generate energy from its environment
(4) Use that energy to reassemble raw material and build more copies of itself based on its information base (DNA in case of carbon-based life on Earth).

Original...

 

[SciencewithDrJ]

Or consciousness.

Actually, what I am after is to explore ideas on how we go about detecting extraterrestrial AI, in addition for search for biochemical signature of life, on other worlds. Would it be only radio signals as SETI is doing now?

 

[ISamson]

Would it be only radio signals as SETI is doing now?

Probably. But also radiation or something.

 

[Drakkith]

The reason I posted this is to seek views and answers to my question: "wouldn't it be possible that our search may well be for extraterrestrial AI in addition to search for biological life? And if so, what would we look for, if not for biochemical signature of life?".

We certainly might encounter sentient or non-sentient extraterrestrial AI. As for what we should look for, it depends on the exact circumstances of the encounter and the details of our respective civilizations. However, I feel it will be fairly obvious that we've found AI and not biological life if we are able to make "close" contact. If we're simply eavesdropping on transmitted signals it will probably be difficult to tell whether these are from AI or from biological lifeforms using communications technology.

Do we know the definition of 'life'?

We know our definition of life, because we've defined it. But what you're probably asking is whether or not that definition is accurate. That we cannot know. Not in the near future at least.

 

[jedishrfu]

Modern textbooks of Life Science define life on Earth as the property of an entity that:

(1) Has inherent information base (DNA) that is self propagating and able to pass its characteristics to future generations.
(2) It is able to accumulate raw material from its environment
(3) Generate energy from its environment
(4) Use that energy to reassemble raw material and build more copies of itself based on its information base (DNA in case of carbon-based life on Earth).

We could take a cue from science fiction. The Star Gate TV show had an enemy called replicators. They would infest a ship and dismantle it to create more replicators. They resembled crabs. Their behavior was similar to an insect colony like bees or ants. I imagine that AI behavior would more likely utilize a distributed and modular form much like the replicators. In later shows the replicators evolved to be more human like but they continued to maintain their colony behavior.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicator_(Stargate)

 

[SciencewithDrJ]

If we're simply eavesdropping on transmitted signals it will probably be difficult to tell whether these are from AI or from biological lifeforms using communications technology.

Thank you for the input. I agree we won't be able to tell one from the other if it is only radio signals. Unless of course somehow we detect biochemical signature of carbon-based life similar to ours, although I find this highly improbable considering the vast distances (at least with today's technology).

 

[SciencewithDrJ]

We could take a cue from science fiction. The Star Gate TV show had an enemy called replicators. They would infest a ship and dismantle it to create more replicators. They resembled crabs. Their behavior was similar to an insect colony like bees or ants. I imagine that AI behavior would more likely utilize a distributed and modular form much like the replicators. In later shows the replicators evolved to be more human like but they continued to maintain their colony behavior.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicator_(Stargate)

Thank you for the input. I have not seen this series, and now that you mention it, I would like to look it up.

 

[Drakkith]

Thank you for the input. I have not seen this series, and now that you mention it, I would like to look it up.

Stargate SG-1 had 10 seasons (and a couple of straight-to-DVD movies which tidied up the very end of the show), which should tell you that many people thought it was a great show. I highly recommend it. If you haven't seen the movie, I'd recommend seeing the movie first and then starting with the show. The movie itself is pretty good on its own, so it's not like you'll be suffering to sit through it till you get to the show.

 

[SciencewithDrJ]

Stargate SG-1 had 10 seasons (and a couple of straight-to-DVD movies which tidied up the very end of the show), which should tell you that many people thought it was a great show. I highly recommend it. If you haven't seen the movie, I'd recommend seeing the movie first and then starting with the show. The movie itself is pretty good on its own, so it's not like you'll be suffering to sit through it till you get to the show.

Thank you again for the tip. I will surely find it.

 

[ISamson]

Isn't the whole point of looking for 'life' to find a biological species? Why should we look for non-biological 'life' if we want to find biological life?

 

[SciencewithDrJ]

Isn't the whole point of looking for 'life' to find a biological species? Why should we look for non-biological 'life' if we want to find biological life?

Lately there were lots of worries about future development of advanced AI on Earth may eventually lead to the extermination of the human race. It made me wonder if an advanced civilization somewhere in the galaxy may have already created such conscious AI. If we detect radio signals, but no biochemical signature, it may be a clue that this already happened somewhere. In which case, we may indeed have to worry about aliens, as Stephen Hawking indicated a couple of years ago.

 

[ISamson]

Lately there were lots of worries about future development of advanced AI on Earth may eventually lead to the extermination of the human race. It made me wonder if an advanced civilization somewhere in the galaxy may have already created such conscious AI. If we detect radio signals, but no biochemical signature, it may be a clue that this already happened somewhere. In which case, we may indeed have to worry about aliens, as Stephen Hawking indicated a couple of years ago.

You know, that most of what I told you was from the book I mentioned before by Michio Kaku?
There were entire chapters on this... I would not be able to summarise quickly here...

 

[SciencewithDrJ]

I look forward to reading that.

 

[ISamson]

I look forward to reading that.

I am glad...

 

[Anon1000]

I am very interested in Astrobiology and just came across this 7-year old abstract by Seth Shostak (of SETI):

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576510002195

There is a lot of emphasis on searching for biological life outside of our solar system, especially with the abundance of "habitable zone exoplanets" discovered by Kepler.

But in view of projections that we will be able to assemble self propagating AI here on Earth in the coming few decades, wouldn't it be possible that our search may well be for extraterrestrial AI in addition to search for biological life? And if so, what would we look for, if not for biochemical signature of life?

Not much. Digital objects are very cheap to maintain, because they don't need to raise their body temperature, they don't need to eat or drink or whatever, all they need is a small amount of electricity, which will go to an extremely efficient and tiny processor. So not very much.

On the plus side however, digital lifeforms cna leave a footprint that biological life can't in space - via magnetic waves. Not that they'd be sizeable enough to notice, but they will exist, unlike biological life in space which will be sealed shut.

Also the idea that digital life would evolve independent of biological is rather, rather unlikely. Metal doesn't magically organize itself into very complicated and dense objects, not to an astronomical probability. So you'll probably find both, or if not both, the sign of the biological life along with the latter.

But as an aside on the AI topic, I would be very cautious, because as well all know, that is not actually Mozart's orchestra playing in the speaker when we play a composition. It is a replica. What I think is extremely likely and scary is that we will create a replica AI, which will behave like a human, but have no internal consciousness, partly because it's not housed in a single celled organism, it's housed on hard drives, in and out of memory, on electrons. Pinpointing the physical location of the AI is problematic enough, designing an actual AI versus a glorified chat bot is going to be the really hard thing.

 

[SciencewithDrJ]

What I think is extremely likely and scary is that we will create a replica AI, which will behave like a human, but have no internal consciousness,

Thank you for the great insight. Wouldn't this AI be able to "modify" its future generations to higher sophistication, so that even though there is no natural mutation as is the case in DNA molecules, it may still self "mutate" by designing and assembling variants of its "ancestral" design?

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...

 

[jim mcnamara]

Thread locked - due to speculation. Please do not "guess" and theorize, use real research based citation with peer reviewed journals if possible