Ontology

[chasw]

Because only living things grow, reproduce and evolve into sentient beings.

Crystals grow and reproduce -- would you consider them to be 'living'?

When you make the claim that living things differ from non-living things in that they "evolve into sentient beings" are you saying that non-living things can evolve, but only if they become sentient do they become living things, thereby implicating sentience as an essential ingredient? If so then how are you using the word 'sentient'?

Good questions, Andy. Crystals grow, but they don't reproduce in a manner even close to the most primitive life forms, which can replicate nearly exact copies. Crystals definitely don't evolve and in that respect their growth is quite predictable. Purposeful evolution is a key characteristic of life, even a simple strain of virus can evolve to meet changing conditions. Without this evolutionary aspect, sentient beings like us would not exist. - CW

[Andy Kay]

Good questions, Andy. Crystals grow, but they don't reproduce in a manner even close to the most primitive life forms, which can replicate nearly exact copies. Crystals definitely don't evolve and in that respect their growth is quite predictable. Purposeful evolution is a key characteristic of life, even a simple strain of virus can evolve to meet changing conditions. Without this evolutionary aspect, sentient beings like us would not exist. - CW

What is the principle difference between the way that crystal reproduce and the way that living things reproduce that would help me to understand the essential characteristics of living things?

When you say "crystals definitely don't evolve", are you reserving evolution as a characteristic of living things?

And when you say "purposeful evolution is a key characteristic of life", wouldn't that imply that only those things that are capable of contemplating end-goals are 'living' things?
If I'm misreading you here then could you expand on what you mean by 'purposeful'?

And I'm still unsure how you're using the word 'sentient'.

All in all, though, I'm not yet convinced that there's an ontological difference between living and non-living things.

[chasw]

Andy Kay said:

What is the principle difference between the way that crystal reproduce and the way that living things reproduce that would help me to understand the essential characteristics of living things?

My depth of understanding of how crystals grow, much less reproduce, is so shallow I can’t answer this directly. I must admit that growing and reproducing may not be distinct enough between the two categories to include in my argument. Evolution is on firmer ground.

When you say "crystals definitely don't evolve", are you reserving evolution as a characteristic of living things?

Yes, by evolution I mean the ability to adapt to a changing environment, creating modified species in a progression that here on Earth has led to ever more complex and capable lifeforms, culminating in Homo sapiens. I cannot imagine any non-living class of entities that can evolve in this manner. You could stretch the term evolve and include the lifecycle of a star. OK, but I suggest that kind of entity and its dynamic evolution belongs in a different ontological category from living entities.

And when you say "purposeful evolution is a key characteristic of life", wouldn't that imply that only those things that are capable of contemplating end-goals are 'living' things? If I'm misreading you here then could you expand on what you mean by 'purposeful'

Yes, I do mean that only living things sense their surroundings and react in ways that enhance their growth and survival. Purposeful means having a plan. Even a single cell of Spirulina algae is genetically programmed to see sunlight and reproduce. Natural selection takes it from there. Our Earth-bound organisms carry this daily purposefulness over as a key element in their progressive evolution. I cannot imagine any non-living entity that exhibits such purposeful behavior. Again, you could stretch the term purpose and apply it to black holes, for example.

And I'm still unsure how you're using the word 'sentient'.

Strictly speaking, sentience is the ability of a mind to subjectively perceive its external environment. Humans are considered sentient beings, so is the Creator of the universe if you are a believer. I prefer a stricter usage, meaning the ability to think above a certain level of abstraction and complexity, in order to rule out other higher-order animals. Thus, a sentient being is a thinking being, capable of intellectual activity. It wasn’t until earlier hominids evolved into Homo sapiens that we begin produce representative art and eventually philosophy. See my November 2012 blog post for an expanded discussion.

http://onhumanaffairs.blogspot.com/2012 ... chive.html

All in all, though, I'm not yet convinced that there's an ontological difference between living and non-living things.

Thanks, Andy. Your feedback was quite interesting. - CW

[Andy Kay]

And I'm still unsure how you're using the word 'sentient'.

Strictly speaking, sentience is the ability of a mind to subjectively perceive its external environment.

Now you've introduced the word 'mind', so we have a different avenue to investigate. There are many philosophical views on the subject, one of which suggests the 'mind' is what the brain 'does' (functionalism). On this view, there is no basis for a claim of an ontological divide. Do you have a different view of 'mind'?

Regarding your view that evolution and purposeful behaviour are identifying characteristics of living things, I can't see an ontological divide there either. May I suggest you take a look at the following article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

[Hjarloprillar]

chasw

Good thread.
Ontology [or the ontological argument] is one of core perspectives in my pursuit of ideas on machine intelligence.

Is a thinking machine, one that learns grows has imagination and desire [to will]..
Alive?

I suggest it is.
'Many' will not so agree.

Prill

[thedoc]

chasw

Good thread.
Ontology [or the ontological argument] is one of core perspectives in my pursuit of ideas on machine intelligence.

Is a thinking machine, one that learns grows has imagination and desire [to will]..
Alive?

I suggest it is.
'Many' will not so agree.

Prill

Show me a computer that can do other than what the programmer programs it to do. Till then is is a dead machine with no thought of it's own. Computing machines have no desire, no imagination, a machine is not alive.

[Andy Kay]

Show me a computer that can do other than what the programmer programs it to do.

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

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

[Bernard]

If I was born as a computer I'd short circuit myself immediately, as any self-respecting computer would do.

[Hjarloprillar]

chasw

Good thread.
Ontology [or the ontological argument] is one of core perspectives in my pursuit of ideas on machine intelligence.

Is a thinking machine, one that learns grows has imagination and desire [to will]..
Alive?

I suggest it is.
'Many' will not so agree.

Prill

Show me a computer that can do other than what the programmer programs it to do. Till then is is a dead machine with no thought of it's own. Computing machines have no desire, no imagination, a machine is not alive.

I did not say computer.
I said machine intelligence.

Computers are to MI as a lichen is to a man.
Does a lichen think? or is it programmed by circumstance and law.. by your above standard it is not alive.
We are but children at feet of concept of consciousness.
One scholar in field once said there is not enough computing power on earth to dynamically map second by second the atomic structure of a single flower.
And we need that power 1st before MI can exist. As the fact that human minds are the most powerfull processors known to us.
20+terraflops of hardwired sensory recognition alone and that's just a start.
There are more possible neuron links in a human mind than the number of atoms in known universe @ 10^66 power

We have a long way to go.
Why do it?
Because we can. Like Apollo. What we learn in effort is beyond current understanding.
Humanity at its best is exploration and imagination.

i clip i stole from movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8CQgRkQyng

Prill
--------------------------------
And the . 'we should look to humanity 1st' . money on such things is wasted.
Well it would not be if we did not breed like flies.

[thedoc]

Show me a computer that can do other than what the programmer programs it to do.

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

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

Yes, computers doing what human programmers have programmed them to do, but nothing beyond that.

[thedoc]

I did not say computer.
I said machine intelligence.

Computers are to MI as a lichen is to a man.
Does a lichen think? or is it programmed by circumstance and law.. by your above standard it is not alive.
We are but children at feet of concept of consciousness.
One scholar in field once said there is not enough computing power on earth to dynamically map second by second the atomic structure of a single flower.
And we need that power 1st before MI can exist. As the fact that human minds are the most powerfull processors known to us.
20+terraflops of hardwired sensory recognition alone and that's just a start.
There are more possible neuron links in a human mind than the number of atoms in known universe @ 10^66 power

We have a long way to go.
Why do it?
Because we can. Like Apollo. What we learn in effort is beyond current understanding.
Humanity at its best is exploration and imagination.

Prill
--------------------------------

There are several qualities that define a living thing and some organisms do not present all of them, but they have enough to be considered alive. Lichens do enough other functions of a living thing to be alive. Computers do not do any of the functions of a living organism and cognizant awareness is the only real option. So far, I am not aware of any computer that displays even this one quality.

[Hjarloprillar]

Show me a computer that can do other than what the programmer programs it to do.

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

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

Yes, computers doing what human programmers have programmed them to do, but nothing beyond that.

What if the programmers embed like a genetic hardwiring into a sufficiently advance piece of mentufactured hardware. Nothing but learn to cope with existance. no more no less.
And the machine later asks " why am i".

We did not program anything but ground rules.. sounds suspiciously like the birth and life of a thinking being to me.

An example worth watching closely is david from movie 'prometheus'.
[he is fascinated with T E Laurence and Dr Shaw in her 'i choose to believe'.]

the trick potter , is not minding it hurts

[Andy Kay]

Show me a computer that can do other than what the programmer programs it to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network

Yes, computers doing what human programmers have programmed them to do, but nothing beyond that.

Nobody can tell what these kind of algorithms will do, not even the programmer, but if you mean that the programmer programmed the computer to do what nobody can predict then you're trivially correct. I'm going to assume that you raised this point as a means of distinguishing living from non-living systems -- i.e. you're claiming that living systems aren't programmed. I don't think this helps your case very much, firstly because many unprogrammed systems are non-living, and secondly because many living systems are programmed (the conditioned response). How then can 'unprogrammedness' be an identifying factor of living systems?

[HexHammer]

What if the programmers embed like a genetic hardwiring into a sufficiently advance piece of mentufactured hardware. Nothing but learn to cope with existance. no more no less.
And the machine later asks " why am i".

We did not program anything but ground rules.. sounds suspiciously like the birth and life of a thinking being to me.

Even 2 bits computers back in the days could be programmed to play higly philosophically questions, even VHS machine and ghetto blasters.

Just because you can program something to perform a parrotspeech, doesn't necessearily mean it will understand what it parrot.

Programming ground rules, would only create artificial life, as this "life" would have no cognitive abilities.

[thedoc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network

Yes, computers doing what human programmers have programmed them to do, but nothing beyond that.

Nobody can tell what these kind of algorithms will do, not even the programmer, but if you mean that the programmer programmed the computer to do what nobody can predict then you're trivially correct. I'm going to assume that you raised this point as a means of distinguishing living from non-living systems -- i.e. you're claiming that living systems aren't programmed. I don't think this helps your case very much, firstly because many unprogrammed systems are non-living, and secondly because many living systems are programmed (the conditioned response). How then can 'unprogrammedness' be an identifying factor of living systems?

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.