Are machines literally alive?

[Holy shit this makes sens]

Do machines fit the characteristics of life?

 

[Holy shit this makes sens]

The 7 characteristic of life may well suit the machines. What does that mean for upcoming technology as it is a solid state machine compared to the much more.. Organic Mechanical parts.
Will advancements take place over improvement?
Could there be micro moving machines. (A.I is also paired with this term)
These are speculations and thoughts of mine.

 

[PhoenixofVindemiatrix]

I would say that machines definitely do not possess the seven characteristics of life. In particular, how could you explain adaption?

Next, even if they did possess all seven characteristics, this fact alone would not make them any more human. The implication here is only one-sided, meaning that all living things possess these qualities, but the simple fact of possessing them doesn't make something alive.

Lastly, humans are fundamentally different from machines in that they have consciousness and free will. I don't care to debate this point again, so I will instead refer you to the determinism thread.

 

[Holy shit this makes sens]

The 7 Characteristics of Life:
1. Living Things are Composed of Cells:
Single-cell organisms have everything they need to be self-sufficient.
In multicellular organisms, specialization increases until some cells do only certain things.

Simple machines, a wedge, a shovel,

Complicated machines, a car

2. Living Things Have Different Levels of Organization:
Both molecular and cellular organization.
Living things must be able to organize simple substances into complex ones.
Living things organize cells at several levels:

Tissue - a group of cells that perform a common function.
Organ - a group of tissues that perform a common function.
Organ system - a group of organs that perform a common function.
Organism - any complete living thing



different stations or chores to a machine, both mechanical and solid state. react with the world.
and previously states stations

these explanations are a bit flawed but so is the idea, not that i was referring to or even mentioned Humans in the post.

May i redirect you to the IJNP
Or whatever that means,

3. Living Things Use Energy:
Living things take in energy and use it for maintenance and growth

Machines need energy just not for maintenance and growth, and thats part of bigger reason why there not humans. Androids.

4. Living Things Respond To Their Environment:
Living things will make changes in response to a stimulus in their environment.
A behavior is a complex set of responses.

Triggers, and on a larger mark it falls it brakes

5. Living Things Grow:
Cell division - the orderly formation of new cells.
Cell enlargement - the increase in size of a cell. Cells grow to a certain size and then divide.
An organism gets larger as the number of its cells increases.

Ok this is where the idea falls apart a bit. First thing machine assembly lines and again on a larger mark the marketability in product

6. Living Things Reproduce:
Reproduction is not essential for the survival of individual organisms, but must occur for a species to survive.
All living things reproduce in one of the following ways:
Asexual repoduction - Producing offspring without the use of gametes.
Sexual reproduction - Producing offspring by the joining of sex cells.

self exampled i would think, just switch Living, With Machines

7. Living Things Adapt To Their Environment:
Adaptations are traits giving an organism an advantage in a certain environment.
Variation of individuals is important for a healthy species.

Tweaks in construct Human implementation if im using that correctly.




I Haven't proven my self wrong or right in any sense because i started with a question not an answer. take it in is just a thought that was circling my mind for a split second before i bolted to the computer in a sudden serge to post said thought

 

[BigApplePi]

Do machines fit the characteristics of life?

They would have to have characteristics of organisms. Like growth, memory, recognition at minimum.

 

[SpaceYeti]

No. No, machines are not alive.

 

[BigApplePi]

#6 bothers me (reproduction). What if the thing just grows and grows? Maybe breaks off pieces to keep a reasonable size, but continue to grow ... no offspring. Would we consider that alive?

 

[Kuu]

This debate cannot go much further without clearly defining what is meant by 'machine'.


I say all organisms are machines, but not all machines are organisms. Have fun.

 

[PhoenixofVindemiatrix]

I would say that an organism is an organic life form, and can be either artificially or naturally created.

A machine is an inorganic entity created artificially to perform a specific task.

If a thing is artificially created, then a sentient being aided its production. If it is naturally created, then no such thing helped beget it.

(I give Proxy partial credit for the development of this hypothesis.)

 

[pjoa09]

ITS ALIVE! ITS ALIIIIIVE!!!!!!! VROOOM VRUM VRUM VRUM VROOOM VRUM VRUM VRUM VRUUUUUUBRAPPPPPPPPP

Yeah, it sounded pretty alive to me.

But in all honesty or in an attempt of honesty however side tracked with humor and wishful thinking:

My car never adapted to my style of driving and I couldn't possibly put it next to an F1 engine and hope it would have sex to produce an all awesome reliable 2.4 litre V10 that does 30 mpg while producing 800 bhp and revving to 12,000 rpm at the touch of the throttle and giving me the choice to make everyone deaf or not. Then again I think it would just be easier if my car had sex with an F1 car altogether.

 

[Holy shit this makes sens]

holy, Cars adapt to there enviroment. take a drifters, the type of driving. Tires are worn out by spins and then there for allowing the car to spin better. These ways machines are worn out reflect what there doing.

The closer we get to harmonizing life and machine the farther we go with technology, Harmonic motion is a key point i would think.

If someone invented something that took harmonic motion and used it to operate a video game the graphics would be kick ass i would think.

the topic is dry. My first post in a awhile came as an impulse.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I'm alive.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

This debate cannot go much further without clearly defining what is meant by 'machine'.


I say all organisms are machines, but not all machines are organisms. Have fun.

Or even what is meant by 'alive'. I personally consider a machine that can respond to its environment by reciprocating force to have some semblance of vitality.

 

[Awesome_Person]

how can something be alive when it doesnt have consciousness? I guess theres no way to tell, but chances are, machines dont have a consciousness.

Sure, artifical intelligence will be possible one day, but they still lack consciousness, dont have DNA, and never started out as a single cell.

 

[pjoa09]

holy, Cars adapt to there enviroment. take a drifters, the type of driving. Tires are worn out by spins and then there for allowing the car to spin better. These ways machines are worn out reflect what there doing.

The closer we get to harmonizing life and machine the farther we go with technology, Harmonic motion is a key point i would think.

If someone invented something that took harmonic motion and used it to operate a video game the graphics would be kick ass i would think.

the topic is dry. My first post in a awhile came as an impulse.

By that logic rocks adapt to their environment.Motors never learn how to run with less oil or last longer.

I think it is a pretty dry post. I don't think machines will ever come alive because we built it.

Think hard though... What if robots were able to know what pieces of metal or oils they needed to repair or improve themselves with? It would give itself an error code from a particular sensor and then a program called "fix your own ass" would run in the background as it continued work. Perhaps in three days it would make it as a priority and using GPS note places where they would offer spare parts or the nearest junkyard and scavenge for the parts it requires.

We could release several different settings and see which one lasts the longest and then release that model. Maybe we would end up abandon some and a hacker gains access to it and makes it hunt for spare parts to make it more powerful. Which is a problem that is very exciting.

 

[SpaceYeti]

how can something be alive when it doesnt have consciousness? I guess theres no way to tell, but chances are, machines dont have a consciousness.

Sure, artifical intelligence will be possible one day, but they still lack consciousness, dont have DNA, and never started out as a single cell.

Trees are not conscious, does that mean biologists are suddenly wrong about their status as "alive"?

 

[Bird]

No. To go off of what Bip said; In order to be alive
the cells that make up an object must go through
cellular respiration. Virions, which are "nonliving"
viruses can stay in a stagnant state in which they
are considered "nonliving" for extended periods of
time. An important characteristic of an organism,
which is a contiguous living system, is the response
to stimuli. Once the cells in virions are stimulated
homeostasis begins to the cells that make up the
virion and voila our virion has now mutated into
a full blown virus. There is a difference between
living and nonliving cells. In order for an object to
be living it has to be comprised of at least one
living cell, prokaryotes, right? Hammers and lamps
and sofas are not comprised of "living" cells but
of "dead" cells, essentially, they are comprised
more out of molecules, atoms, and compounds in
the case of air, gases, etc... than of actual living
cells. They do not contain living cells. All living things
are organisms. If no cells are alive in an object it
is not an organism ergo it is not alive.

 

[Bird]

Trees are not conscious, does that mean biologists are suddenly wrong about their status as "alive"?

Trees are eukaryotes which denotes that their cells
have nuclei and are autotrophs. Nonliving things
are not capable of creating their own food and their
cells do not have nuclei. They have no need for such
frivoloties. Trees are considered vascular plants which
means that the secondary cell-wall in these organisms
are comprised of lignin. Most cell walls are made
up of polysaccharides which are obviously soluble. In
order to live plants must have water. Lignin strengthens
the cell wall in between homeostasis and other cell
processes so that a plant will not lose water and die.
The cells of a plant, of a tree, make an effort to stay
alive. I'd say this means it's living. Also, trees were a
bad example guys, the leaves of trees "die". Obviously
trees are alive.

Consciousness is not a deciding factor when considering
whether a cell is alive or not.

 

[Bird]

Or even what is meant by 'alive'. I personally consider a machine that can respond to its environment by reciprocating force to have some semblance of vitality.

When machinae renew their own cells, present this argument please.

 

[dark]

If you don't think machines can adapt to their users, check out some stuff the Germans are doing.

It seems the only thing that keeps a machine from being qualified as living is the reproduction, which is almost exactly the same for every other non-living thing.

But if we really decide machines are live, you would go to prison for all kinds of things assholes with temper problems do all the time to machines. If machines are alive, we would end up with machine rights organizations, trying to free the machine from the use of humans, we would end up back with stones, couldn't even use a wedge because that would be slavery and illegal.

I like to keep them not alive for now.

 

[pjoa09]

Ok I have the answer.

Once my car has a working a fully functioning penis and someone else has a car with a fully function vagina then machines are alive.


According from what I am getting here software is alive. Computer code lives in a way. It need electricity, yes, but it can reproduce, repair itself, and has sections of data that are working to output just like a cell.


Machine is not alive but the software is. Sort of. It needs to learn how to make food now.

 

[SpaceYeti]

If you don't think machines can adapt to their users, check out some stuff the Germans are doing.

It seems the only thing that keeps a machine from being qualified as living is the reproduction, which is almost exactly the same for every other non-living thing.

But if we really decide machines are live, you would go to prison for all kinds of things assholes with temper problems do all the time to machines. If machines are alive, we would end up with machine rights organizations, trying to free the machine from the use of humans, we would end up back with stones, couldn't even use a wedge because that would be slavery and illegal.

I like to keep them not alive for now.

Also, the whole metabolism thing. Machines don't have one.

 

[Bird]

Okay, ignore my posts because I am RIGHT.

 

[Auburn]

I think there are two ideas being mixed up here..?

Sentience & Life - are two different things, imo.

Humans are both sentient and alive.
Trees are not sentient, but they are alive.
Cars and computers are neither sentient nor alive.


However, although it hasn't been achieved yet, I believe it's possible for a computer to become conscious/sentient - but that still wouldn't make it "alive" by the definition presently known (which is what Bird said).

Whether an entity is alive or not has nothing to do with it being conscious. Amoeba, coral, bacteria and many other living species are entirely instinct driven (some don't even have a brain) - yet they're alive.

So no matter how intelligent an A.I. becomes it still wouldn't qualify as living because that is a property exclusive to, and synonymous with being an organic specimen.

It's just that we as humans are used to equating consciousness with life, so if we see a conscious machine we think it must be alive, but it isn't. It's a consciousness born out of dead matter.
​

 

[Black Rose]

What if instead of physical existence creatures existed only as reproductive software.

Viruses reproduce as software why not dogs and cats.

Although they would need to be highly complex perhaps even a petabyte per organism.

 

[SpaceYeti]

What if instead of physical existence creatures existed only as reproductive software.

Viruses reproduce as software why not dogs and cats.

Although they would need to be highly complex perhaps even a petabyte per organism.

Firstly; Then that thing you said would be the case in that case.

How would you store the data for the animal? There are plenty of ways you could do it. I'd suggest storing their genes, and next using a virtual duplicator to represent current cellular growth, which would be processed for all cells, but differently depending on the cell's programming based on it's location, as it would be determined normally in life. It would cut down the storage necessary for the animal, excepting perhaps hard disk space. But you'd save your RAM that way. Keeping every cell in current processing would be kind of dumb. Then you could filter the current state of the program through whatever interface you make for it to view the animal.

Either way, they wouldn't be life. They'd be a program.

 

[NSINTP]

I dont think machines are alive, but they are very tempermental and seem to have a mind of their own, but not alive and I dont think they will ever be considered alive, though I heard that England (a very long time ago) was thinking about giving AI robots "rights", which I think is absolutely rediculous and absurd

 

[BigApplePi]

Here is a different and simple requirement for life ... don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet. There is only ONE requirement for life:

THAT IT KEEPS GOING!

That's all you need. We are biased. Life doesn't have to be like us. We only keep going because of input. Take away our oxygen, food and drink and we is daid. Why would machines be considered any different? Take a simple pendulum. As long as it keeps going, we can wonder if it's alive. Something keeps it moving. We only say they are dead because all the pendulums we have slow down without input. (We can say the Moon going around the Earth is alive except we know that is slowing down too.

More thoughts: no way consciousness is required for life if by that is meant self-awareness. An amoeba has very little awareness yet it is alive. When we watch a movie we accept everything we see as alive ... as long as it's a good enough movie. The only way we judge it dead is when it stops and we stop watching it. How many times have we wished the movie would go on with its life but doesn't?

Reproduction is not a requirement for life. Reproduction makes it alive because it is ONE way of keeping things going. A primitive tribe reproduces and keeps going. But the moment too much civilization sets in and destroys the tribe, we say the tribe is dead. (See the film, "Last of the Mohicans."

Machines are alive as long as they keep going. The trouble with machines is they have no backup. Animals and plants have backup. Try and kill any animal or plant and pieces of it are still alive. They merge with other input and grow into different forms. Hard to kill those. Take any piece of soil out in the woods and it is alive with seeds. The only way to kill it is to boil it until the heat kills everything.

 

[BigApplePi]

No. To go off of what Bip said; In order to be alive
the cells that make up an object must go through
cellular respiration. Virions, which are "nonliving"
viruses can stay in a stagnant state in which they
are considered "nonliving" for extended periods of
time. An important characteristic of an organism,
which is a contiguous living system, is the response
to stimuli. Once the cells in virions are stimulated
homeostasis begins to the cells that make up the
virion and voila our virion has now mutated into
a full blown virus. There is a difference between
living and nonliving cells. In order for an object to
be living it has to be comprised of at least one
living cell, prokaryotes, right? Hammers and lamps
and sofas are not comprised of "living" cells but
of "dead" cells, essentially, they are comprised
more out of molecules, atoms, and compounds in
the case of air, gases, etc... than of actual living
cells. They do not contain living cells. All living things
are organisms. If no cells are alive in an object it
is not an organism ergo it is not alive.

Bird. I wonder if we can think of life as scaled? That is, life goes from lots of life (continuity of motion) to relative quiescence. The hammer and lamp and sofa don't move. Yet the molecules, atoms, and compounds of which they are composed do move. The hammer can be said to be alive as long as it is a hammer. Over eons it will deteriorate into a non-hammer. We don't see it as alive because we are biased.

Cells are alive if they have sufficient "soup." I'm not a microbiologist, but don't cells have RNA and stuff floating around as code? Lots of stuff in a cell. This stuff takes advantage and interacts inwardly and outwardly with the cell wall to do stuff with the products of other cells. Unlike the hammer, they have lots of code as well as rich material to work with. So they are called alive.

 

[Bird]

Bird. I wonder if we can think of life as scaled? That is, life goes from lots of life (continuity of motion) to relative quiescence. The hammer and lamp and sofa don't move. Yet the molecules, atoms, and compounds of which they are composed do move. The hammer can be said to be alive as long as it is a hammer. Over eons it will deteriorate into a non-hammer. We don't see it as alive because we are biased.

Cells are alive if they have sufficient "soup." I'm not a microbiologist, but don't cells have RNA and stuff floating around as code? Lots of stuff in a cell. This stuff takes advantage and interacts inwardly and outwardly with the cell wall to do stuff with the products of other cells. Unlike the hammer, they have lots of code as well as rich material to work with. So they are called alive.

There are living and nonliving cells. Atoms are not alive.


When I'm not retarded (I seriously think I'm growing retarded,
having a super shitty memory this morning. I'm trying to focus
on where I lost things.) I will reply better.


I can go ahead and answer your question though, no
not all cells contain RNA. For example, viruses usually
contain either DNA or RNA but not both. Only living cells
have RNA. Non-living cells contain neither RNA or DNA unless
they are virion which are non-living only in the sense that they
have not been "awakened". Only organelles and some
viruses have both DNA and RNA.

 

[SpaceYeti]

No, reproduction is part of the biological definition of life, and biology is the study of life, so... you know, they kinda know what they're talking about. I mean, you can use the word differently if you want, but you're not, then, talking about the same thing a biologist would be talking about using the same word. I don't make a habit of arbitrarily changing the current definition of words, because using words in any arbitrary way makes using words at all meaningless. But, hey, if you want to use it differently, go ahead. Just nobody's going to understand what you're talking about.

PS The entire point of words is to communicate. If you use words to mean whatever you want them to instead of what other people understand them to be, they won't understand what you're saying. Further, that doesn't make you smart when you use big words other people don't know when addressing the people that don't know what it means. It makes you stupid, because you're not getting any message across... you're being an ass.

 

[Bird]

I have a feeling someone's going to ask the question,
"if virion are living cells but come across as dead, how
do we know machines/non-living things aren't just
'sleeping' as well?"


Because humans can study the cells of objects and
detect whether or not RNA/DNA is contained within.

 

[BigApplePi]

There are living and nonliving cells. Atoms are not alive.

I can go ahead and answer your question though, no
not all cells contain RNA. For example, viruses usually
contain either DNA or RNA but not both. Only living cells
have RNA. Non-living cells contain neither RNA or DNA unless
they are virion which are non-living only in the sense that they
have not been "awakened". Only organelles and some
viruses have both DNA and RNA.

As long as we speak of DNA and RNA, those are code. Do machines have code? They can have programming, but programming is complex. DNA and RNA ... well ... what goes here? Maybe they are put together in a lucky way. If part fails, the whole thing doesn't fail.

 

[Bird]

As long as we speak of DNA and RNA, those are code. Do machines have code? They can have programming, but programming is complex. DNA and RNA ... well ... what goes here? Maybe they are put together in a lucky way. If part fails, the whole thing doesn't fail.

I'm having a really hard time understanding this.

What goes where?

 

[BigApplePi]

I'm having a really hard time understanding this.

What goes where?

Apparently anyone and everyone has trouble understanding this. I meant when machines have programming (as for a robot), we (the programmers) know exactly what the programming is programmed to do. Not so with RNA and DNA strands, do we? We don't know what that code does ...

 

[Bird]

Apparently anyone and everyone has trouble understanding this. I meant when machines have programming (as for a robot), we (the programmers) know exactly what the programming is programmed to do. Not so with RNA and DNA strands, do we? We don't know what that code does ...

Geneticists everywhere are working on this.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Well, we didn't actually write it and, further, it's not really a code, it's merely compared to codes for a simple explanation to high-school students

 

[BigApplePi]

No, reproduction is part of the biological definition of life, and biology is the study of life, so... you know, they kinda know what they're talking about. I mean, you can use the word differently if you want, but you're not, then, talking about the same thing a biologist would be talking about using the same word. I don't make a habit of arbitrarily changing the current definition of words, because using words in any arbitrary way makes using words at all meaningless. But, hey, if you want to use it differently, go ahead. Just nobody's going to understand what you're talking about.

PS The entire point of words is to communicate. If you use words to mean whatever you want them to instead of what other people understand them to be, they won't understand what you're saying. Further, that doesn't make you smart when you use big words other people don't know when addressing the people that don't know what it means. It makes you stupid, because you're not getting any message across... you're being an ass.

SpaceYeti. Everything you say here is fair and correct. Words are meant to communicate. Biologists use the definition of life in their special well-defined way. What I was trying to do was to create an expanded word that would include standard "life" but generalize it. I failed, in my haste, to make a formal definition.

"THAT IT KEEPS GOING" is a generalized definition. Call it "life-expanded" if you wish ... or whatever. I don't have a word. I'm interested in how machines and living things are different. So first I think of how they share common traits, then work from there.

I am certainly not the first to expand the definition of life beyond biology. Ever see "The Game of Life" program? Google it. I haven't for a while. If my memory serves, it's about placing patterns on a plane while obeying certain rules. As you "play" this game, patterns grow or die. The behavior is like life or at least looks like it.
http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

 

[BigApplePi]

Well, we didn't actually write it and, further, it's not really a code, it's merely compared to codes for a simple explanation to high-school students

Define "it." You mean RNA/DNA? It isn't code? I thought it was code.

 

[pjoa09]

Well, we didn't actually write it and, further, it's not really a code, it's merely compared to codes for a simple explanation to high-school students

Isn't it what is required to create a cell? It's alteration has caused birth defects? I mean how is it not the code? It is an instruction given out to build another cell. Or am I wrong? I don't know, I always presumed it is the instruction and you could fuck it up to make three-eyed gazelles.