Can a robot be called as Living thing?

[DaveC426913]

What an interesting paradox. I have thought about essentially the same question multiple times. From a particular viewpoint, the crux of answering the question lies in establishing some threshold where once crossed the object in question no longer retains its identity. I believe this can be given quite a measurable, i.e., mathematical, representation.

Already the framing of the question establishes some threshold since it is assumed that the ship, or the human vessel, remain static throughout time. Small changes are also likely to be dismissed: If a splinter is removed from the ship or a hair removed from my body, we are still likely to not question the persistence of the object's identity. I think interesting conclusions can be drawn from these thoughts, although some are, granted, fairly academic.

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".

Of more practical concern: I think this provides a simple algorithm to determine what is responsible for something's function. Basically: remove things until it stops doing what it was doing. Removing planks one by one might provide considerable insight as to what keeps the ship afloat in the first place, in case Theseus was wondering. If technically feasible, I think this would be a fantastic way to attempt to identify the basis of consciousness. Ideally one could start by removing one molecule at a time and analyzing throughout, initially it'd be far more practical to start at a coarser grain by, say, removing entire neural compartments or neural assemblies.

I think the algorithm can also be abstracted away from a material setting, although will probably be more difficult to carry out in general. For example, in regards to an argument of what constitutes life, one could identify a living object and then start to subtract parameters until it was clear that the object could not possibly be alive without these remaining parameters. Then this fundamental set must be the basis of life. This might sound very oversimplified since, after all, it has been traditionally very difficult to establish a working definition of what life is. However, I think the main impediment has been what Dave mentions in another post: human versus non-human is a very different question than alive, or animate, versus inanimate.

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'.

 

[darkfrog]

Certain definitions become useless at certain points. Do we call Archeopteryx a bird or a reptile? When a new class of something can be identified, it is reasonable to create a new definition or new system of taxonomy.
There may come a time when we have replicating nanobots that will need to be classified as somewhere between biological life and non-replicating inorganic material.

 

[Newai]

This is a pretty shortsighted view. First off, there's a multi-billion dollar industry that says they can do a lot more, including recognize facial expressions, and even eat. Secondly, they're able to do more and more complex things every year. The solid line you're trying to draw between robots and living things simply isn't there, and that grey area is going to start being challenged in the future.

Of course the industry says that. Would you expect them to put it so succinctly as I? Especially with all the different brands of A.I. they tout, none of which are even a true A.I. Anyway, all those nifty things they can do still boil down to their transistors: on/off. They don't reproduce, they don't evolve, they don't grow. They are no where near living organisms yet. My central nervous system, by comparison, knows on/off in a similar way, but it is not by itself. Without the other components that make me alive, that system would not function.

 

[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 don't also think I've met a biologist that doesn't understand the our definition of life is not a natural "law" of life. Ergo, by our definition such a robot would not be "living". Similarly, we don't consider viruses living (because they don't meet some of the above criteria for life).

That isn't to say that our definition of life is the definition of life, it is merely an agreement to allow discourse on applicable subjects. Certainly things which aren't alive by our definition could be alive under another definition of life, or posses life like properties.

 

[bobze]

argh, double post.

 

[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

 

[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...

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]

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 definitely 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)