Ontology

[Andy Kay]

Living things have programmed responses and un-programmed responses and the mix varies from one species to another. So far as I am aware, computers are ONLY capable of programmed responses, and they exhibit no other sign of life. I did not say that living things had only one kind of response or that they displayed only one kind or the other, my point was that computers have only demonstrated programmed responses and I was not making any points about the characteristics living things possess or do not, only those characteristics that computers lack, which at this time are all of them.

Non-living things have programmed responses and unprogrammed responses and the mix varies from one kind to another. The examples I gave of evolutionary algorithms and artificial neural networks were examples of machines that are capable of unprogrammed responses, so I guess we have to move on from "unprogrammedness" as the essential characteristic of living systems and look at these "other signs of life" that you mention above. What exactly do you have in mind?

[Hjarloprillar]

Living things have programmed responses and un-programmed responses and the mix varies from one species to another. So far as I am aware, computers are ONLY capable of programmed responses, and they exhibit no other sign of life. I did not say that living things had only one kind of response or that they displayed only one kind or the other, my point was that computers have only demonstrated programmed responses and I was not making any points about the characteristics living things possess or do not, only those characteristics that computers lack, which at this time are all of them.

True.. but there is a very large cluster of people /groups working on MI. It is at least 50 years from now in making.
If i was gates.. this is one of 2 prime candidates for 50 billion in funding
They don't get dod funding cause military wants weapons
What they fail to realize is that the most powerful weapon is a thinking individual.
Empires rise and fall by one mind.

A simple example. Roarks drift 100+ stand off 3000. by mind of Lieutenant John Chard Vc.
no computer or program can reproduce this.
Man under extreme testing is the way, all else is cotton candy

[Hjarloprillar]

Living things have programmed responses and un-programmed responses and the mix varies from one species to another. So far as I am aware, computers are ONLY capable of programmed responses, and they exhibit no other sign of life. I did not say that living things had only one kind of response or that they displayed only one kind or the other, my point was that computers have only demonstrated programmed responses and I was not making any points about the characteristics living things possess or do not, only those characteristics that computers lack, which at this time are all of them.

Non-living things have programmed responses and unprogrammed responses and the mix varies from one kind to another. The examples I gave of evolutionary algorithms and artificial neural networks were examples of machines that are capable of unprogrammed responses, so I guess we have to move on from "unprogrammedness" as the essential characteristic of living systems and look at these "other signs of life" that you mention above. What exactly do you have in mind?

lol
life to me is dynamics.
a rock is not so much. it is basically inert
a lichen is hugely dynamic. it reproduces. it survives.
be that a simple [to evolution] program. eat grow reproduce.
[ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053946/?ref_=nm_knf_i4 ]

does a sponge think?

any 'thing' that has self instigated systemic change and is biological. is life by our current standard

[Andy Kay]

life to me is dynamics.
a rock is not so much. it is basically inert
a lichen is hugely dynamic. it reproduces. it survives.
be that a simple [to evolution] program. eat grow reproduce.
[ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053946/?ref_=nm_knf_i4 ]
does a sponge think?
any 'thing' that has self instigated systemic change and is biological. is life by our current standard

On that account, then, there is no ontological distinction between the categories of living and non-living systems. For those that claim there is such a distinction, their case has not yet been made.

[Bernard]

Matter isn't the fundamental basis if the universe, awareness is. All bets are off when that is realised.

[chasw]

Computers in general, and especially early, primitive attempts at "thinking" machines (e.g., IBM's Deep Blue), are an artful representation of our minds, or more precisely our current conception of how our brains and minds function. Humans created computers in their own image, so to speak. The cyberspace computer programs typically operate in is a direct reflection of the organic cyberspace our minds operate in. This seems to corroborate my claim that the minds of higher-order animals constitute an ontological category of existence, separate from the category of all living things.

Where these attempts at intelligent machines eventually lead to, and what the ultimate limits are, is anyone's speculation. However, I can imagine within a few hundred years or less we'll have humanoid robots similar to Sonny in the movie iRobot. They will still (perhaps always) lack that last 5% of humanity. They won't be alive, humans will still (hopefully) have to service and scrap them. I feel I can safely predict that NLT 2050, we'll see computers that dialog with us in natural language, sophisticated enough that some people will become obsessed with and fall in love with them, to the exclusion of normal social interaction. Think of pet hoarding crossed with internet addiction times ten.

As if this line of speculation weren't complex and controversial enough, consider a possible growing trend to incorporate machines into the human organism, attached or embedded. Imagine a future, truly intelligent machine, that contains all or part of a human brain, using both organic and machine resources to think and act. Could that entity rightfully be considered alive? Is that the path to our inevitable extinction? - CW

[Andy Kay]

Matter isn't the fundamental basis if the universe, awareness is. All bets are off when that is realised.

Are you making a case for or against an ontological division between living and non-living things?

[Andy Kay]

Computers in general, and especially early, primitive attempts at "thinking" machines (e.g., IBM's Deep Blue), are an artful representation of our minds, or more precisely our current conception of how our brains and minds function. Humans created computers in their own image, so to speak. The cyberspace computer programs typically operate in is a direct reflection of the organic cyberspace our minds operate in. This seems to corroborate my claim that the minds of higher-order animals constitute an ontological category of existence, separate from the category of all living things.

There's that word 'mind' again, and still without any description of how it's being used. I don't know what "cyberspace computer programs" are, nor what the "the organic cyberspace our minds operate in" means. So your speculation about an ontological distinction seems to be corroborated by your further speculation, the nature of which is opaque to me. All I can do is to hold my hands up and retire from the conversation in perplexity.

[Hjarloprillar]

chasw


Agree mostly.

but
They will still (perhaps always) lack that last 5% of humanity. They won't be alive

Sophistry
2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.

Prill

[Hjarloprillar]

1. All matter and energy in the universe, which are subject to the laws of physics
2. All living organisms, which are subject to the laws of biology. Living things are sustained by matter and energy, but operate according to their own purposes.
3. The consciousness of higher order animals, which are subject to the laws of psychology and neuroscience. The mind is sustained by the organism it inhabits, however, it freely decides what to think about and directs much of the organism's behavior.
4. The spiritual dimension of reality, unseen but ever present, and ruled by love of the Creator of the universe. Our perception of this dimension is tenuous at best and not measurable by material instruments.
-------------------------------------------

Laws of biology?

Laws of psychology and neuroscience?

4. or this 'spiritual dimension' may be part of ab psychology and neuroscience.
I believe in a design. Imposed upon structure of this verse from bang point on. I believe in 'a' god. who stuck his nose in 14 billion years ago and has no fixed address.

Its the long dark tea time of the soul. [ i am being quite serious]

I never looked at ontology this way.
my def is
A priori speculation upon a question that is unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment. our place.

In this mind boggling immensity called reality so huge and complex and unknown we can't even imagine the edges of our ignorance.
what is 'our place'?

that is ontology, to me

---------------------
when an MI asks same then it is our equal in all ways that matter.

then
alea iacta est

[Bernard]

Matter isn't the fundamental basis if the universe, awareness is. All bets are off when that is realised.

Are you making a case for or against an ontological division between living and non-living things?

Between aware things and unaware. But it's not a dualism. Everything around us is composed of either aware entities of some nature or other, or else are unaware structural components of aware entities that may or may not be connected to aware entities, but certainly derived from them or involved in the processes of forming aware entities. Simple example: a feather that falls from a bird is not an aware entity, but while still connected to a living bird it is not necessarily an isolated object but may be considered a function of the bird and infused with the birds awareness to such an extent as to make it indistinguishable from 'aware bird'.

[Hjarloprillar]

Matter isn't the fundamental basis if the universe, awareness is. All bets are off when that is realised.

Are you making a case for or against an ontological division between living and non-living things?

Between aware things and unaware. But it's not a dualism. Everything around us is composed of either aware entities of some nature or other, or else are unaware structural components of aware entities that may or may not be connected to aware entities, but certainly derived from them or involved in the processes of forming aware entities. Simple example: a feather that falls from a bird is not an aware entity, but while still connected to a living bird it is not necessarily an isolated object but may be considered a function of the bird and infused with the birds awareness to such an extent as to make it indistinguishable from 'aware bird'.

“I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself.”

― D.H. Lawrence

[Andy Kay]

Are you making a case for or against an ontological division between living and non-living things?

Between aware things and unaware. But it's not a dualism. Everything around us is composed of either aware entities of some nature or other, or else are unaware structural components of aware entities that may or may not be connected to aware entities, but certainly derived from them or involved in the processes of forming aware entities. Simple example: a feather that falls from a bird is not an aware entity, but while still connected to a living bird it is not necessarily an isolated object but may be considered a function of the bird and infused with the birds awareness to such an extent as to make it indistinguishable from 'aware bird'.

I have to try to work out how you're using the word 'aware' in this case. Would you say that the engine management system of a car is 'aware' of the engine temperature and the driver's use of the accelerator pedal?

[HexHammer]

“I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself.”

― D.H. Lawrence

Outdated knowledge, animals can have excessive selfpity, the range of human emotions are very much similar in animals as they as us share the reptile brain.

[Hjarloprillar]

“I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself.”

― D.H. Lawrence

Outdated knowledge, animals can have excessive selfpity, the range of human emotions are very much similar in animals as they as us share the reptile brain.

rubbish