View topic - Worth a second listen

unforum
a.r.g.b.b

Welcome!

New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.

Website Restoration Project

This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.

Announcements

This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.

This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.

Our Esteemed Contributors

The time now is Tue Nov 19, 2024 5:52 pm
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)

View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum

Calendar

Forum index » Archive » Archive: The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!) » The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!): General/Updates

Worth a second listen

Page 6 of 10 [142 Posts]

Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Author

Message

vector
Unfettered

Joined: 28 Aug 2004
Posts: 721
Location: Portland OR

Tarrsk, thanks for the rebutle and clarification that i dont have to type Very Happy

_________________
The bookworm is just the larval form of the barfly

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:46 pm

Kali
Decorated

Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Posts: 162

ACK!

I spent a half hour typing an explanation about DNA coding and base pair enzymes and how mutation does create new sequences....

and I clicked the back button by accident and lost it all.

quickly then:

DNA is comprised of triplets of base pair nucleic acids. these triplets code for proteins which determine development of different characteristics. A mutation in one of these nucleic acids is completely random. this is what biologists refer to when they talk about rates of mutation.

A mutation in the first 2 nucleic acids of a triplet often do not change the protein coded for by that triplet. a mutation in the third nucleic acid usually does.

If the change in protein is fatal, the pregnancy is terminated, often long before anyone knows it existed in the first place. This is why we do not have legions of malformed people walking around.

My story was not an illustration of how mutation works but of how culture and society can effect their frequency in a population.

Must go home now.

but there was more... and it was eloquent.... really it was....

Edit: typed this too fast... thanks for the correction.

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:57 pm
Last edited by Kali on Mon Nov 29, 2004 11:13 am; edited 3 times in total

IcyMidnight
Boot

Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 66
Location: San Francisco, CA

Quote:

AIs are "alive" in that they add to their programming, alter their programming, and respond to stimuli. They don't feed, they ARE electrical energy - we are not chemical energy. They don't require anything to make their electricity work, but we require food to make our bodies work. They reproduce by copying the bits of information that make them who they are. We reproduce by joining two specific objects so that it becomes its own new entity which grows on its own, a unique entity from its conception. An AI reproduces by creating a duplicate of itself. Kind of like the difference between analog and digital.

Again, mechanically I see no difference.Imagine an AI hooked up to an electical generator. Petroleum (gas) goes in, electricy comes out and that electicity floars around in some sillicon circuits.
Humans food goes into the stomach, it is converted to other chemicals, and eventually electical impulses which float around in carbon circuitry.

Obviously the AIs couldn't exist with something that turns a naturally occuring thing into electrical energy, but neither could we (stomach).

Quote:

Like I said though, electrons ARE the AI. Turning off electricity for an AI is not equivalent to stopping the food source for a human. An AI doesn't need food. Electricity is the AIs body, not its food. An AI, as long as it has electricity and a medium, exists. As long as it has subroutines, it thinks. A human, as long as it has a physical body, exists. As long as it has electric current in the form of organic 'life', thinks.

Here you are aguing with yourself Razz

You are saying that AIs are not alive because they are electricity (I of course argue that electricity is their thoughts like ours), and that humans are alive because they are electricity. Hmm! Smile

Quote:

The additional thing: as long as it has food, it survives. AIs are not equivalent to humans. Because of their different makeup, both humans and AIs would have strengths in different areas. Not being restricted by requiring food, AIs can last as long their bounds allow them to (having electricity, having a medium, and in the case of the Haloverse, not growing to the point of chaos with subroutines).

We have covered the needs food thing, but you also suggest that AIs are not alive because they are different ("have strengths in different areas") than humans. Does tha make whales not alive? They have strength in different areas.

And you make an additional point for me! AIs only stick around as long as they have a functioning body around them. And if you want to discuss moving to a new medium/computer, I would call that reproduction. *Copy* AI from A to B and erase (kill) AI at A.

Quote:

If we were not a form a living organism that can't be recreated, then we would be equivalent to an AI, but even though our methods of thinking, acting, responding are theoretically the same as a piece of software, that doesn't change the fact that we are physically alive but an AI is not.

Ah hah!

But the exact AI cannot be recreated again (unless you created a backup every few seconds) because it would not be able to "experience" the same things, and consequently its neural net (or what ever tech it is based on) would develope differently (just as in the case of identical twins).

I'll stop here for now, but there will be more on this later!

_________________
Live Gamertag: IcyMidnight

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:17 pm

IcyMidnight
Boot

Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 66
Location: San Francisco, CA

Just a note on this discussion (for in case).

It is a very wonderful interesting debate. Buts lets keep it that. I am ecstatic that it has remained so friendly as these often deteriorate into fights. Keep up the good work peeps!

Remember, when I am "arguing" with you, I'm not saying that you are wrong, necessarily, but mostly I'm trying to get you to explain your point more.

Very Happy

_________________
Live Gamertag: IcyMidnight

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:20 pm

Arana
Unfettered

Joined: 20 Aug 2004
Posts: 353
Location: shallow grave

Evolution, life sentience

Just a few quick corrections on statements concerning the scientific view of evolution and life. (I am speaking of the SCIENTIFIC view only i. e. conclusions based on evidence. Those who prefer a religious (inspirational or revelatory) world view may disagree, but that's philosophy, not science). I will spare you the lectures I give on these topics, but must make a few points.

"Point mutation" does not add new information, but many forms of mutation do! Transposition (movement of sequence from one part of the genome to another) and duplication (including some transpositions that leave copies of themselves behind) both add new sequences to the genome that are grist for the mill of evolution to produce new genes and new traits. If the copy of the gene is altered, while the original remains the same there is now MORE information in the genome!!!

The first organisms in the fossil record are similar to those alive today that have around 2000 - 3000 genes. Humans have 25,000 genes and rice has >40,000, ergo - evolution produces new genes and new information. We don't have to rely on ancient history, we (molecular biologists, like me) have observed the production of new genes in the lab and in the field.

There is no scientific definition of "life spark" or any other such phrase. The idea that life was somehow inherently chemically different from non-life (vitalism) is now usually mentioned only as a discredited prior model. Everything about a cell and an organism we have observed to date appears to be explainable through chemical and physical processes that operate in the non-living parts of nature. Their highly complex interactions make them appear different, but we have no evidence that they are. There is no reason to think that purely electronic constructs could not be made that are equal in complexity and other features to the chemical assemblages we refer to as life.

There's lots more there that I could add on some of the genetics discussed, but these were the two biggies.

*Arana takes off Professor of Molecular Biology hat and puts on Beekeeper shirt* [i. e. spec on, science off] Does something have to be alive (including ability to replicate) to be sentient? I don't think so. I see sentience as relating more to self-awareness and ability to respond to environment. I would be hard-pressed to pick between saving an organic or an electronic mind if they were equal in complexity, self-awareness and sensibilities.

_________________
If it's *spec* you never have to say that you're sorry.

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:27 pm
Last edited by Arana on Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:09 pm; edited 1 time in total

Tarrsk
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 98
Location: Washington, DC

Arana, well put! Where do you teach? Smile

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:35 pm

Arana
Unfettered

Joined: 20 Aug 2004
Posts: 353
Location: shallow grave

Tarrsk wrote:

Arana, well put! Where do you teach? Smile

The short answer is a planet Kamal referred to as "a place called dirt". For a longer answer see my "profile" in which I bravely (foolishly) put more information than most.

I wish that Kali's writing hadn't evaporated before she posted it. Could have saved me this! Her simplified story on genetically determined traits where selection is driven by culture was well-done!

_________________
If it's *spec* you never have to say that you're sorry.

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:47 pm

Phaedra
Lurker v2.0

Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

Re: Evolution, life sentience

Arana wrote:

(Just 'cause I'm feeling bratty....) The disagreements have been going on much longer than most people think.

Rashi (Hebrew acronym for Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchak, 1040-1105 CE), generally acknowledged to be the greatest Jewish biblical commentator, ever -- now his commentaries are often printed in standard editions of the Tanakh -- (and he was read by medieval Christians as well -- in fact, it was a Christian printer who developed the distinctive form of writing known as "Rashi script"), declared, nearly a millennium ago, that anyone who believed Genesis was a literal account of creation "ought to be ashamed of themselves." A close reading of the text, he noted, does not provide any support for the idea, and indeed conflicts with the idea that anything other than light was created ex nihilo.

Needless to say, his contemporaries didn't like it too much.

So I rather doubt we, thousands of years later, have much to add to the core question of the debate. It still basically comes down to a question of faith rather than evidence.

Oh well, time for my favorite Babylon 5 quote:

"Faith and reason are like the shoes on your feet: you can go further with both than you can with just one."

However, I'm not sure that, in a discussion of For what do we have scientific evidence? anything useful can be added from a faith perspective, so perhaps we should keep the discussion to science.

If we want to have a creation/intelligent design vs. evolution argument, we can always revive the theology thread.

All right, back to your regularly scheduled [DEBATE].

_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:10 pm

Phaedra
Lurker v2.0

Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

Arana wrote:

I wish that Kali's writing hadn't evaporated before she posted it. Could have saved me this! Her simplified story on genetically determined traits where selection is driven by culture was well-done!

Personally, I was especially fond of the phrase:

Kali wrote:

Eventually, Adam's descendents start exclusively mating with each other, because really, why would you Censored

someone who never smiles?

Oh, and the bruce, maybe this has already been covered, but her " Very Happy

gene" wasn't the *ability* to smile (i.e. the necessary facial muscles, etc.) but the instinct to smile when happy.

_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:13 pm

Gestas
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 92
Location: Mostly away in Real Life (TM) at present

Kali wrote:

DNA is comprised of triplets of base pair enzymes. these triplets code for proteins which determine development of different characteristics. A mutation in one of these enzymes is completely random. this is what biologists refer to when they talk about rates of mutation...

Kali, might I suggest altering "enzyme" to "base" (or "nucleic acid" where appropriate) in your post? Small mistake, but it just jumped out at me Smile

(And substitute "amino acid" for "protein"?)

Loved your smile evolution story btw. Makes me want to do this: Smile

Now, that's kind of it for me: I thought about saying how pleased I was that this thread was so civil, and IcyMidnight beat me to it. I thought about mentioning the aspects of vitalism in the posts, and Arana put it so eloquently I have nothing to add...
So, umm, keep posting and I'll keep reading Wink

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:58 pm

thebruce
Dances With Wikis

Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario

EDIT: the latter half of this post is pretty much entirely regarding evolution... we're going to try to attempt to go back on topic, so if you want to talk OT, let's start a new thread or take it off the forums Smile

EDIT2: holy crap this post is long! Laughing

Tarrsk wrote:

Now, regarding flesh vs. machine... Water10 hit the nail on the head when he brought up Kamals quotation. Unless you bring in metaphysical concepts of the soul (and I'm not saying we shouldn't be!), there really is little difference between an organism and an extremely smart computer. "Organic" only means "made of carbon," after all; though popular culture has sort of co-opted the definition of "organic" to mean "biological" or "involving life," this simply isn't the case. Plastics are organic compounds as well: they are long carbon polymers, the monomers frequently including many of the same functional groups as you'd find in any biological molecule. Yet nobody would claim that plastics are "alive."

Ok, however you define 'organic', I'm referring to the 'essence' of life - plastic isn't alive, even though it's organic material, because there are properties of it that cannot self-sustain life, and it hasn't been given that 'spark' that makes it alive. Biological, organic, self-sustaining organism if you want to nit-pick... Razz

but I don't even know if that's accurate enough. It's simply - what makes an amoeba different from plastics. The amoeba is alive, it has a spark that makes it work that can't be recreated. If the amoeba dies, we can't give it back its life. It stops. It's dead. That's the difference I'm referring to.

Quote:

Silicon is immediately below carbon on the Periodic Table, and shares many of the same atomic properties. On a planet with different conditions from Earth that favors silicon-based reactions over carbon-based reactions, it is quite possible that entirely inorganic life could evolve.

Well then you're saying that 'organic' life is only carbon based life... but I would firmly believe that the spark of life, if the medium is theoretically self-sustainable, whether carbon or silicon, can exist in whatever base the life form is... theoretically, silicon life could exist (though we've no proof of it yet, but for arguments' sake). So I'd agree, being carbon based is not the definition of life.

Quote:

While I did feel that protecting Dana was extremely important (and in fact sided with those who objected to handing her over to Melissa), I find it impossible to accept the argument that Dana's life should be valued over Melissa's merely because she is organic and solid.

Were there no adverse effects for either the loss of Melissa's or Dana's life (ie, if Melissa's death would have no negative effect such as causing the deaths of other humans), then I would strongly disagree. Dana's life would be much more valuable than Melissas... to me... because my value on life is placed on life itself, not just the 'usefulness' of an entity. But, given Melissa's death would likely have a very adverse negative effect, that has to become a part of the equation. So it's not just Melissa vs Dana, it's Melissa+human lives vs Dana. A very different moral dilemma...

Quote:

Well, first of all, use of facial expressions for communication is hardly restricted to humans- most social apes do, as well, and certainly many other mammals do as well (for example, a dog's growl involves facial contortions as much as it does the generation of the sound). I'd say that our primate ancestors used facial muscles for communication quite a lot already, and if anything, this is one of the more primitive modes of human communication.

Sure... but that doesn't prove it evolved from the non-use of facial expressions because the ability didn't exist.

Quote:

In an underwater enviornment, vision becomes far less important than aural sensation.

Who says? If visual recognition is far less important, then why are so many fish covered in various colours intended on distracting or attracting? vision is just as important under water as aural is, but that's a factor that differs from species to species.

Quote:

For social primates like apes and humans, however, the muscles are already there thanks to our mammalian ancestors.

Thank you

they were already there...

however, if evolution is true, then at some point life was sparked from non-life, and apes, just as much as fish, evolved from a single cell, which itself contained absolutely no ability for any complex native abilities to species we find today. So regardless of whether 'our ancesters' already had the muscles, at some point, they must have evolved from non-information, right? Facial muscles aren't a good argument for the 'addition' of information, because we already have the genes required for muscles, so a mutation hypothetically could create facial muscles. But, humans doesn't have the genes to create fish scales or wings... adding information through mutation is not possible, at least through all science's attempts at proving it, it has not yet been proven. All discovered mutations have been found to be alterations of existing information - abilities that were either dormant previously, or an alteration or duplication of an existing physical feature...

There's a difference between adapting, or mutating, which might have the effect of allowing that instance of a species to survive 'elimination' in a certain environment. But, for a property of an organism that is required for survival - ie can't survive without it - there is no possible way that it could have survived (therefore existed) before that property existed. For instance, the eye - which can't function with any of its core features not to its current of development, for it to have mutated to become what it is, the full eye in its highly complex form would have to come to exist right away.

Quote:

This is the "how could such a complex system as the eye evolve" fallacy. It most definitely is NOT possible for something like an eye to form in one mutation. However, gradual adaptation is quite possible indeed- for example, the most primitive "eyes" are photochemically excited molecules that trigger physiological or behavioral responses in unicellular organisms. It's not hard to imagine mutations that lead to aggregations of these molecules, forming an eye-spot. Minor modifications could each in turn gradually improve the performance of the eye, and over the course of millions of years of evolution, we could conceivably get something approaching a mammalian eyeball.

You got there first Razz

- note the bolding is mine. That's all it is - imaginitive mutations. These are hypothetical mutations that add genetic information to the eye. This is simply not possible. As I mentioned, there has been no evidence whatsoever, throughout all mutative science experiments, that have found additional genetic information that did not already exist. Given the genetic information for a primitive "eye", there is no possible way that a mutation could produce the new genetic information required to product a more complex eye.

However, a mutation such as an altered skin colour that allows an animal to survive more easily in a certain climate or environment isn't new information, it's alteration of an amount of pigment in fur or skin, a genetic possibility. In the end, assuming the mutation takes to the next generation, you can end up with one colour of the species in one area, and another colour in another area... or even the extinction of the original colour. Who knows. Growing another wing, or another head, or another eye, or another finger... all are mutations. but a human mutating a gene to produce a wing, or even a semblance of a non-functioning wing is simply not possible, because the information does not exist.

Anyway, this is definitely getting way OT... if you want to talk evolution, let's take it to another OT thread Smile

Quote:

Hehe... whoops, goood point. I'll stop now. Smile

blah.. I should havae read that before I typed anything... I'll add an edit to the top of this post Smile

Quote:

Your answer to date seems to be that AI is merely a programmed response to specific stimuli. However, these AIs aren't just a few lines of code specifically programmed with rote responses. They are adaptable in exactly the way that the human brain adapts to external stimuli. While this is obviously impossible now, it is what the SF authors put forward and is what we should be evaluating.

AFAIK, the AI is created based on a set of properties and routines used to capture the framework, and leave the door open for it to alter itself, within a set of parameters in order to grow, and remain controlled. The one problem that ONI found was that no matter what they did, they couldn't stop the 'rampancy' that occurs after 7 years of growth. Everything else is still within the bounds of the AI flashing system they created. Just like in the Halo 2 novel, the AIs discuss between themselves their existence. They even state that they were programmed to respect and value human life. If they can somehow circumvent that programming, which theoretically would be possible given enough time and they weren't entirely still restricted to grow within boundaries, then there's no use in programming those boundaries. In a sense, just the fact that they acknowledge a limit that they cannot cross, is proof that they were flashed and defined within a set of boundaries. It's like a yard - start some grass growing boxed within a fence. ONI sprinkles the seed, sets up the fence and says 'go' - the AI begins to grow. The fence is the boundary of their growth - ie their usefulness in the military, the restrictions placed on aspects of their existence (eg Melissa vs Yasmine), etc. Now as the grass grows, let's say its growth never stops. If the fence doesn't continue to grow to keep the grass from eventually growing over and outside the bounds, then what was the point of having the fence? The fact that someone can come along and see - hey, there's a fence stopping that grass from spreading - is proof in itself that the boundaries exist. If there's one crack in the fence and grass gets out, given enough time, same thing - no need for a fence because the grass will be everywhere.

now I'm babbling Razz

the fact that the AIs stated they are restricted by programming means that their growth MUST be defined, otherwise they would eventually have circumvented that limitation.

now where was I? Confused

"these AIs aren't just a few lines of code specifically programmed with rote responses"
yes, they are. And their routines are self-altered as necessary to accomodate new information, to the point of being indistinguishable - by character, personality, thought process - from the original human. But I'd even argue that point, depending on how much independent growth time the AI has had. A 7 year AI may not bare any resemblance to the original human after that amount of time, because so many more factors have played a role that would never have even been possible for the human after 7 years of additional life.

Quote:

how would you propose to prove to me, living far from you and unable to verify, that you are a sentient being

how would you propose to prove to me that you are in fact a sentient being asking me these questions? It can't be proven, one way or the other, so it's a moot point. The fact is that we are dealing with the information we are given. Assuming from both sides of the equation, that the information we are given is true - the Melissa is in fact an AI, and that Dana is in fact a human, then we can make our decisions accordingly... but if you can say that you are uncertain that Dana is human, therefore value the AI Melissa more, that just doesn't add up. If you are uncertain Dana is human, then you MUST also be uncertain that Melissa is an AI. And if that's the situation, then we may as well throw this whole debate out the window Very Happy

Quote:

I could understand if you are assuming that a computer-based artificial intelligence would be more easy to recreate, due to its digital nature. However, without that assurance you are consigning one or another sentient creature to oblivion. You do remember the screams of the Sleeping Princess as she was burned away by Melissa, right?

Without the assurance that Melissa is in fact the AI she 'claims' to be and not just a limited programmed response limited to our answers, not a full-fledged highly complex AI, then you are consigning one human being to an enormously unfair death. Hey, if you state that we're uncertain of Dana's humanity, then we can state that you're uncertain of Melissa's assumed complexity and 'sentience'.

Quote:

As to whether the SP WAS Yasmine or not, I would point you to another Star Trek:NG episode involving First Officer Riker. During a transporter mishap, an exact duplicate of himself is created which is abandoned on the planet from which he was attempting transport. Neither copy knows of the other's existence until years later. How could you say that one is less Riker than the other.

hehe now you're arguing a fictional technology that isn't even theoreticaly possible at this point. Creating an AI, yes, because the flash cloning creates the software that is the AI. But the process of destroying and recreating biological life between two locations hasn't even begun to be touched. It crosses the philosophical boundary of theory, about whether life can be created from non-life. If a teleportation technology moves the molecules themselves and reconnects them, then theoretically, life was never removed, just moved, therefore duplication would not be possible if 'creating' life (that is the life force, not a philosophical definition of life) is not possible. But duplication would be possible IF it were proven that life could be sparked manually. But, if the teleport process destroys the original object and recreates it, then it's assumed that recreating the 'spark' of life is possible. Either way, that episode of Star Trek assumes that the manual human process of creating that 'spark' of life is a discovered fact, which at this point is not.
Theoretically we do have the ability and techonology to create an AI as complex as in Halo... of course, it would take more time tha optimal because we don't have the technology for the process that does that programming for us. But the ability exists for us create that AI. The ability does not exist for us give life to duplicated organisms.

Quote:

In the same way that identical twins are exact duplicates. They start as an identical copy of a cell and from there they diverge. Therefore, SP IS Yasmine, just different now due to her experiences.

Actually, I'll correct you there too... twins aren't an original and a copy. They are two equal beings that split from one being. A copy is a piecing together of another entity using the information pulled from the original. Twins in that sense would need to have one as the original, and the other as a clone, which they are not. There's one cell, and it splits - both resulting cells have always had 'life' in them. Whereas, a copy of a cell would need to have that 'life' given to it - the original already has it, but the copy does not.

This is why cloning has been done - life was not created, life already exists in the cells they take from the original entity. Cloning, as it pertains to reading the data of every atom of a being, and recreating atoms in another location in order to imitate the original, would be possible, but in the end you'd create a dead imitation. No life would have been given to those molecules, no matter how lifelike it appeared physically, life would not exist.

Quote:

Mechanically I see no difference.Imagine an AI hooked up to an electical generator. Petroleum (gas) goes in, electricy comes out and that electicity floars around in some sillicon circuits.
Humans food goes into the stomach, it is converted to other chemicals, and eventually electical impulses which float around in carbon circuitry.

But again, equivalently, the gas essentially IS the AI. Without the gas, there would be no electricity, no AI. Cutting off gas is essentially the same as destroying the matter in a human body, not cutting off a food source. 'Food' is unique in this case to the human, not to the AI.

Quote:

Obviously the AIs couldn't exist with something that turns a naturally occuring thing into electrical energy, but neither could we (stomach).

Again, the difference being that the equivalent to electricity/gas would be our body's molecules, food is an extra step, and extra process, than humans deal with, not AIs. Cut off the food, we can still exist for a time. Cut off the gas, and there is no more electricity, the essence of an AI. So, destroy a body's molecules, there is no more physical existence for the human.

Quote:

An AI, as long as it has electricity and a medium, exists. As long as it has subroutines, it thinks. A human, as long as it has a physical body, exists. As long as it has electric current in the form of organic 'life', thinks.

Here you are aguing with yourself
You are saying that AIs are not alive because they are electricity (I of course argue that electricity is their thoughts like ours), and that humans are alive because they are electricity. Hmm!

No, I'll clarify - I argue that AIs exist because they are made up of electric signals through a medium. A human exists and is alive because we are made up of electric signals through a medium and have been given the extra spark of life force. A human can exist without the life force... but they're usually found 6 feet under. Take away the electricity of an AI, the AI no longer exists, unless its state is physically stored. In which case, giving it electricity once again will make it work. We can't give dead humans their life force back...

Quote:

We have covered the needs food thing, but you also suggest that AIs are not alive because they are different ("have strengths in different areas") than humans.

I never argued that AIs are not alive because they have strengths in different areas. I argued that their value in life could theoretically be valued by their abilities over the abilities of a human being (I might hire an AI as an accountant over one of the best human accountants out there, if the AI could calculate millions of times faster, for instance). But, I also argue that regardless of an AIs abilities, it is still a piece of software, and barring other secondary effects on the matter, the taking of the human life is far worse in my eyes than the taking of an AI life.

Quote:

And you make an additional point for me! AIs only stick around as long as they have a functioning body around them. And if you want to discuss moving to a new medium/computer, I would call that reproduction. *Copy* AI from A to B and erase (kill) AI at A.

No, AIs only stick around as long as they have electricity and a medium for that electricity to flow effectively. I wouldn't call copying data reproduction, I would call it duplication. Humans aren't born by copying information. They are born because a single piece of information splits. The information isn't recreated at a new location. Life isn't given to the new information, life already existed because it was taken from an existing piece of information. Digitally, reproduction isn't possible. In a digital world, the is signal (1) and no signal (0). It's not even theoretically possible split a 1 signal to an individual 1 signal, or split no signal to an individual lack of signal. But where a 1 is received, a 1 can be written, and where no signal is received, one bit can be skipped. This is reproducing in the same way that life reproduces. This is simply duplicating the data.

Quote:

Ah hah! But the exact AI cannot be recreated again (unless you created a backup every few seconds) because it would not be able to "experience" the same things, and consequently its neural net (or what ever tech it is based on) would develope differently (just as in the case of identical twins).

Theoretically, yes it can be posible to be recreated. As massive as it is, the entire AI system is still a composition of digital signals, 1s and 0s. Given its finite size at its point of 'deactivation', it is theoretically possible to recreate the exact AI from its point of 'death'.
With humans, as massively complex as the molecular makeup is, it is theoretically possible to recreate a human physical being. But it is not theoretically possible to make that being come alive.
If we truly knew why death happened, or how, we'd be able to reverse it. Which is precisely why life itself is considered invaluable, because it cannot be recreated. It can be imitated, but not created.

Quote:

"Point mutation" does not add new information, but many forms of mutation do! Transposition (movement of sequence from one part of the genome to another) and duplication (including some transpositions that leave copies of themselves behind) both add new sequences to the genome that are grist for the mill of evolution to produce new genes and new traits. If the copy of the gene is altered, while the original remains the same there is now MORE information in the genome!!

Ok this is getting way too technical for my tastes Razz

I get all my genetic information though from another source... so it's definitely giving me a reason to do som research. I'm just not a professional, so I can't express what I know without necessarily expressing mistakes in my recollection or terminology... but, here are some editorials that deal with genetics and the issue I'm discussing - new information vs alteration of existing information.
Pseudogenes
retrotransposition, retrotransposons, etc

Quote:

DNA transposons, or 'class II transposable elements', move from place to place by replicative transposition (that increases the copy number) or by a simple cut-and-paste mechanism. Though in general not as common or in as high a copy number as retroelements, they are still found in most organisms. Examples are the Drosophila P elements, bacterial transposons such as Tn10 and Tn7, the Mu phage, and the ubiquitous mariner/Tc1 superfamily of transposons. The mariner/Tc1 family is the most widespread, being found in most insects, flatworms, nematodes, arthropods, ciliated protozoa, fungi and many vertebrates, including zebra fish, trout and humans.43 Copy number varies from two copies in Drosophilasechellia, to 17,000 in the horn fly Haematobiairritans, accounting for 1% of the genome. The vast majority of them appear to have been inactivated by multiple mutations. The close homology between mariner/Tc1 elements found in species thought to have diverged 200 million years ago has fuelled the hypothesis that these elements can transfer horizontally (that is, not by normal inheritance) between different species, or even different phyla

if you can undestand that, great Smile

Can genetic information be gained from mutations? - there's a good list of articles that deal with the very question we're discussing... save me a bunch of time Smile

Quote:

There is no scientific definition of "life spark" or any other such phrase. The idea that life was somehow inherently chemically different from non-life (vitalism) is now usually mentioned only as a discredited prior model. Everything about a cell and an organism we have observed to date appears to be explainable through chemical and physical processes that operate in the non-living parts of nature

Well you're saying that theoretically you could put inorganic chemicals together and create an organic, self-sustaining, living entity. Please back up that claim...

Quote:

Does something have to be alive (including ability to replicate) to be sentient? I don't think so. I see sentience as relating more to self-awareness and ability to respond to environment. I would be hard-pressed to pick between saving an organic or an electronic mind if they were equal in complexity, self-awareness and sensibilities

If you define the value of two entities solely on that definition of sentience, then that's your choice... But I don't feel like that life is simply, and only, made of sentience... so my value of two entities relies on more than just the fact that they are both self-aware, complex, sensory entities. So now it's a matter of opinion Smile

Phaedra wrote:

So I rather doubt we, thousands of years later, have much to add to the core question of the debate. It still basically comes down to a question of faith rather than evidence

ditto...

Quote:

Oh, and the bruce, maybe this has already been covered, but her " gene" wasn't the *ability* to smile (i.e. the necessary facial muscles, etc.) but the instinct to smile when happy.

Ok, even so, I passed on from the 'smile' gene issue, because technically any alteration of a facial feature or processes required already exist elsewhere in the human genome... we have muscles, and we have emotional instincts... theoretically a smile could be a mutation, just as much as growing an extra finger...

Anyway, now that I've finally caught up, I also have to add my impression of this thread - I'm impressed. Smile

that it is still so civil. So often it quickly gets down to a 'who can throw the loudest word' type of argument... but it seems to have drawn the attention here of a number of very intelligent people in their fields. Fortunately for me, I'm not in the field, so I don't feel that my reputation is on the line Razz

j/k. But given that I'm so very confident in my opinions and beliefs, I'm willing to rebut anything that I know can't be true, with whatever sources I can find... and hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I'll learn... although I seem to be losing 'teammates' Smile

even so, with my lack of knowledge, I'll forward to better sources where I can, to people who do know better than me, and from whom I can tell are arguing the same point (though usually from a much higher point of view which I couldn't possibly reach), and who may be better understood by some of you... what I can explain in my own words, I will try... but trust me, if you can come up with an argument that changes my beliefs (and yes I'm open to that, though I'm confident it won't happen Razz

), then you'll be my new idol Smile

But yeah, this is fun... it's a definite challenge!
Say hello to the new ARG(ish) puzzles! Laughing

this should keep us busy until Halo 3 Wink

_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 3:29 am

thebruce
Dances With Wikis

Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario

One more thing:

Quote:

The first organisms in the fossil record are similar to those alive today that have around 2000 - 3000 genes. Humans have 25,000 genes and rice has >40,000, ergo - evolution produces new genes and new information. We don't have to rely on ancient history, we (molecular biologists, like me) have observed the production of new genes in the lab and in the field.

please cite an example of a completed, documented experiment which proves that new genetic information was produced in a lab or in the field.

_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 3:41 am

IcyMidnight
Boot

Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 66
Location: San Francisco, CA

thebruce wrote:

hehe now you're arguing a fictional technology

Actually we are arguing two equally fictional technologies. We currently do not have the technology to create an AI equivalent to the ones in the Haloverse.
With advances in processors, memory and information passing we could create a similar AI, but it can not be done now.
Transporters technology is theoretically possible. The process the duplicates the particles unfortunately destroys the originals.

So yeah, both technologies are fictional, but we are not discussing what does happen, but what would you do if it did happen.

Now onto a different tangent�.

thebruce wrote:

He wasn't saying that vision is not useful or used, just that it is less important (the factor that you mention). I think that you are both arguing the same point here...

thebruce wrote:

But are you really the same "person" (person in relation to personality/reactions and less in relation to body) that you were seven years ago? Or more analogously are were you the same person at age 7 that you were when you were born? Or, taking into account that AIs "think/process" more quickly, even more analogously would you be the same person at 700 that you were when you were at an age with fewer than 3 digits?

thebruce wrote:

the fact that the AIs stated they are restricted by programming means that their growth MUST be defined, otherwise they would eventually have circumvented that limitation.

And humans are not limit in their growth? For example many people cannot think in >3 dimensions. No one can really conceive of an object in >3 dimensions visually. Ask anyone failing early high school math if they would ever be able to do calculus. Ask most math students whether they could create art like that of Da Vinci.

thebruce wrote:

If you define the value of two entities solely on that definition of sentience, then that's your choice... But I don't feel like that life is simply, and only, made of sentience...

So we are not arguing whether AIs are also sentient then? Ok! Smile

thebruce wrote:

Phaedra wrote:

So I rather doubt we, thousands of years later, have much to add to the core question of the debate. It still basically comes down to a question of faith rather than evidence

ditto...

I agree, but this is still fun! Very Happy

thebruce wrote:

In theory (technically speaking), if you created the exact chemical and electrical makeup of the human, then we would create a living functioning human. We have actually reversed the death of humans. Many people have been clinically dead for multiple seconds, and I think minutes even. Later they are brought back.

And theoretically if you could take an identical sperm and egg, and subject the cells to the exact same stimuli, the same person would emerge (scientifically speaking). So humans are just as theoretically recreatable as AIs. It's just the neither is particularly practical or very easy (read close to impossible).

thebruce wrote:

Functionally we could create an equivalent for every human part.
Brian = Processor/Memory (Both short term and long term)
Stomach = Generator
Food = Input energy (e.g. fuel to a generator, matter to a fusion reactor, water to a hydro dam, etc)
Fat = Batteries
Eyes = Camera
Ears = Microphone
Etc.
My point is that I do not think that you can argue that AIs are different functionally than humans. If we added batteries to out fictional AI system that analogous to fat and stored chemical energy, then they could last just as long as humans. We could theoretically construct a body very similar to humans for an AI.

thebruce wrote:

The body can be found without life, but it is dead and decaying. Try adding electricity back into the corroded/damaged circuitry of the AI. Not gonna work either! Smile

AFAIK Physiologically speaking the reason humans die is that once parts of the body shut down, there are changes that stop them from starting again. Although as I mentioned earlier if you get the system up and running quickly enough, there is not time for the body to become damaged and thus life can be restored. The process is similar in an AI/Computer. It's just that the decay is MUCH slower.

thebruce wrote:

Actually identical twins here are a single cell that replicates. The information in its nucleus (DNA) is copied. Basically a bunch of chemicals come by and make copied of other chemical patterns. The nucleus at one point contains two sets of (usually identical) DNA. Then the cell splits, bits of it go to each side, and you are magically left with two living cells. The only thing that already exists, physically, is the chemicals and proteins. These are copied and replicated.

I'm not sure if much research has been done in this area, but often (always?) identical twins that are separated at birth and that developed in very different environments will meet later and have many of the same traits: mannerisms, music/fashion/food tastes etc. This suggests that there is something about our personalities that is inherently genetic.

More OT, but non identical twins are just two sperm-egg impregnations at once if I recall.

thebruce wrote:

Scientifically speaking it is possible to create a new amoeba. Now you need some chemicals, just the right amount of energy and environment conditions and little luck. Eventually the proteins that make up what we call life will spontaneously form (this is in the first few chapters of my first year bio textbook). We haven't been able to get to the point of those proteins forming together to make actual amoebas, but it is theoretically possible. We just don't have the technology yet Wink

.

I think that this all comes down to the whole "life spark" that you are talking about. I think it is what others would call a soul. Although I think that you would give an amoeba a "life spark" that others wouldn't.

Now if that is not what you are thinking then we are talking about the definition of the word "life". Recently science has decided that life is a little less restricted to only humans, amoebas and the like. Take a look into virii. You will find that they are particularly unlike life (by my original definition a few years back I would not have considered them to be alive), but they are considered that way due to the way that they "behave".

thebruce wrote:

Anyway, now that I've finally caught up, I also have to add my impression of this thread - I'm impressed. Smile

I must echo your sentiments again here. I am really enjoying having a civil discussion looking at our, obviously, different beliefs/opinions/interpretations.

Thank you all for your most interesting and stimulating new experiences! Wink

P.S. I apologize for any repetitions of thoughts or missing thoughts. My posts, like most peoples, have very little proof reading done before posting. Also prefix most of my "facts" with an AFAIK, as I have not fact checked.

_________________
Live Gamertag: IcyMidnight

Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 5:22 am

IcyMidnight
Boot

Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 66
Location: San Francisco, CA

My apologies for the double post, but here goes....

thebruce, you started discussing the worth of an AI vs a human. This really worth will not be the same from person to person. This idea is explored in economics (near the beginning anyway) and is called utility.

Now assuming you attributed life and sentience to an AI (we are of course debating this bit, but for the sake of argument...), the value that one person places on that life is different from person to person.

For example lets take three "lives" your favorite person (parents, siblings, husbands/wives, children, you pick), melissa (with Yasmine's personality around), and me.
Now lets say that you are given the choice to let one of them live. Only one.
My guess would be that you choose your favorite person, I would choose me, and Kamal would choose melissa. Who would someone else on these forums choose? That would be different for each person.

So the value to be placed on an AI vs a human can not really be universally determined.

In another track, and this has been kinda explored above, lets add aliens from another galaxy into our mix.

Humans, bacteria, AIs, aliens.

Are all alive? Are all sentient? Are all of there existences (lives) equally valuable?

_________________
Live Gamertag: IcyMidnight

Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 5:56 am

Arana
Unfettered

Joined: 20 Aug 2004
Posts: 353
Location: shallow grave

thebruce wrote:

One more thing:

Quote:

please cite an example of a completed, documented experiment which proves that new genetic information was produced in a lab or in the field.

I did in my original post, but I will repeat here since you seem to want to know. There are actually thousands of complete documented cases in the literature. Every replicative transposition event adds "information" to the genome. That is, if you were to add ten letters (even nonsense letters) to a sentence of fourty letters, the new 50 letter sentence contains more information. Transposons are often a few thousand bases long, and replicative transposons (which add new copies of themselves at other genome locations while maintaining the original copy) therefore add a few thousand bases of information to a genome every time they transpose. We observe transposition events on a daily basis in a wide variety of organisms in the lab. At this time of year you can see them yourself - the "indian corn" with all the different colors. Each sector of color is the result of a transposition event, every kernal that differes from its neighbors has new genetic information that was not present in the parent plant. In all these cases we can see new information in the genomes of progeny plants by direct examination of the DNA sequence of parent and progeny. Such experiments have been performed many thousands of times.

Why you ask don't genomes get filled up with junk copies from this? They do! More than 95% of the information in the corn genome is relic transposons!!!

Too diffuse a description? I could list thousands of articles, but here are just a couple picked at random from Medline:

Go Y, Satta Y, Kawamoto Y, Rakotoarisoa G, Randrianjafy A, Koyama N, Hirai H.
Frequent segmental sequence exchanges and rapid gene duplication characterize the MHC class I genes in lemurs.
Immunogenetics. 2003 Oct;55(7):450-61. Epub 2003 Oct 03.
PMID: 14530885 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

(gene DUPLICATION = more information in the genome)

Amiri H, Davids W, Andersson SG.
Birth and death of orphan genes in Rickettsia.
Mol Biol Evol. 2003 Oct;20(10):1575-87. Epub 2003 Jun 27.
PMID: 12832625 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Another a particularly interesting example was discovered by colleagues at my institution. The article is:

C. W. Sun and J. Callis (1993)
Recent Stable Insertion of Mitochondrial DNA into an Arabidopsis Polyubiquitin Gene by Nonhomologous Recombination
Plant Cell 5: 97-107.

In this article it was found that 3,900 bases of DNA from the mitochondrial genome had been duplicated and inserted into a particular gene in only one specific strain of Arabidopsis (a mustard plant used in research). The addition of 3,900 bases of information to that particular genome - demonstrated to not be present in the progenitors of that line.

All of these (and, honestly, thousands of others) show addition of information to the genomes of the organisms in real time where parent and progeny can both be examined to see how the change occurred. We even know chemical and molecular details of the mechanisms, it is not mysterious at all any more. Examples are even found in humans where new sequenes (duplications coupled with rearrangements) are found in children that are not present in either parent (I work on plants so they are not on the tip of my reference list). Same is true a wide variety of other organisms.

For my graduate work I worked on DHFR a gene that is shown to "amplify" (i. e. produce multiple copies of itself - more copies=more information) in response to treatment with anti-cancer drugs. This was siscovered in 1978! This is not new stuff, it is old hat do biologists. All these cases are demonstrated, documented, nailed to the wall (and even more stringently peer reviewed!).

The web pages you cite at answersingenesis are NOT science web pages, they are religious web pages (clue "genesis" is a religious document, not a scientific document) not a good source of information for a discussion of science. That set of web pages chooses to ignore and not cite vast areas of the scientific literature that do not conform to a preconceived set of ideas. Scientists don't have such luxury, we have to try to explain ALL the data.

If you want new information that is also shown to have a new function, I can get that too, real time examples are more rare. It is just late and I don't have time to look it up right now. This stuff is in beginning genetics courses now.

Thanks for maintaining a civil discussion. I think that I must be done with this.

_________________
If it's *spec* you never have to say that you're sorry.

Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 6:37 am

Display posts from previous: Sort by:

Page 6 of 10 [142 Posts]

Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Forum index » Archive » Archive: The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!) » The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!): General/Updates

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum