Life in a machine

[Epicurean]

I place this thread in this sub-forum because it doesn't touch on any modern science, while also bringing up the question of what constitutes life.

One thing I've been thinking about is the possibility of creating artificial life and, eventually, artificial intelligence, using the principle of evolution.

Given computing power far beyond what we have today, say that you start out with a bit of code that infinitively loops. Then you constantly randomly change something in this string of code, creating new, separate, loops. This would be a very rudimentary simulation of reproduction with random mutations. And if you then add some evolutionary pressure in the form of problems for this code to solve, you'd soon start seeing all sorts of different strings of code able to overcome these problems while continuously looping.

In what ways does this exactly differ from life, other than in building blocks and nature of environment?

The tricky thing would of course be how to design good problems for such a system in order to encourage evolution. But at the same time you avoid the whole problem of evolving a sustainable physical body, and can immediately start building upon that which will eventually become an artificial intelligence.

Of course any 'intelligence' you would end up with wouldn't function in any way similar to how human intelligence works. But teaching a fairly complex such a structure language and communication would not be that hard, so you would be able to communicate with it. And, once again, I ask, exactly how would this differ from actual, real, intelligence, say that of an animal?

[hellheaven1987]

Computer codes, no matter what, cannot recreate emotion and moral belief of different species.

[kentuckybandit]

Makes me think of Data in Stark Trek, and those moments when Picard is like "That is happiness Data, haha". It is one thing to recreate an emotion, but the being (computer or animal) must also be able to register and compute the feeling. I don't know if a computer could understand what it is feeling.

[hellheaven1987]

Makes me think of Data in Stark Trek, and those moments when Picard is like "That is happiness Data, haha". It is one thing to recreate an emotion, but the being (computer or animal) must also be able to register and compute the feeling. I don't know if a computer could understand what it is feeling.

It is possible to annalyse emotion and morality logically, but that is how far logic can go when dealing emotion and morality. The fact is, emotion and morality actually are not logical, hence they cannot be presented in a logical way.

[Copperknickers II]

Computer codes, no matter what, cannot recreate emotion and moral belief of different species.

Why not? What does human DNA have that a computer code cannot have, in terms of physical structure?

[hellheaven1987]

Why not? What does human DNA have that a computer code cannot have, in terms of physical structure?

There are no solid evidences suggesting emotions are created by DNA; the only evidences we have now only suggesting emotions do have some connections with DNA, but other factors are also heavily involved.

[Epicurean]

I specificly said it isn't human life i am after. But this would be life we can tailor as we see fit, and then emotions and the like aren't that desirable anyhow.

And DNA codes aswell.

[mw2xboxplayer]

And if you then add some evolutionary pressure in the form of problems for this code to solve, you'd soon start seeing all sorts of different strings of code able to overcome these problems while continuously looping.

How exactly would the code (your AI) adapt to these new "evolutionary pressures"?

If a line of code (Which is essentially what your AI is.) encounters a problem, the code will have a fatal error and crash. I don't see how applying problems to the code would allow it to "evolve"; all you would get would be a whole bunch of crashed codes.

[kentuckybandit]

Well I also look at it like this. My dog in The Sims knows when it is hungry, must eliminate and when it needs attention (abstractly since a machine doesn't really need these things). It can wander about randomly and sniff things. But is this truly life? Can code really model random chance and free will?

[justicar5]

Well I also look at it like this. My dog in The Sims knows when it is hungry, must eliminate and when it needs attention (abstractly since a machine doesn't really need these things). It can wander about randomly and sniff things. But is this truly life? Can code really model random chance and free will?

Possibly, but not on a binary processor, it needs a system more varied than yes/no. Neural network and learning computers may get close..eventually.

[Ancient Aliens]

How exactly would the code (your AI) adapt to these new "evolutionary pressures"?

If a line of code (Which is essentially what your AI is.) encounters problem, the code will have a fatal error and crash. I don't see how applying problems to the code would allow it to "evolve"; all you would get would be a whole bunch of crashed codes.

Great points. My thoughts exactly.

Regarding your code being life-like, no. Life has to meet several standards.

For instance:

-Most biologists consider a cellular structure to be indicitive of life. Entities without cell walls (such as viruses, RNA, or complex strands of proteins) are not considered life.
-A metabolism is required for a creature to be considered alive. It has to intake fuel.
-An organism must be able to respond to external stimuli. This is of particular importance when discussing whether or not your program is alive, because without response to external stimuli, and without external stimuli at all for that matter, life, and your program, cannot evolve. Your program couldn't replicate a unique response to external stimuli, nor could it produce unique external stimuli, as, mw2xboxplayer said, this prohibits from exhibiting evolutionary changes. This is due to the fact that the codes that comprise both your program and the external stimuli program are preordained.
-Reproduction. Life needs to be able to replicate itself.
-Finally, life must, at some point, cease to exist. Your program is unable to "die" naturally (it has no expiration date), and it would be unable to respond to life threatening situations, as true life does.

[Epicurean]

Great points. My thoughts exactly.

I did say the code would loop and create copies of itself, and that all of these copies would randomly change until some copy would be able to overcome the problem. And then this, successful, code would create copies of itself and repeat the process on the next problem.

Regarding your code being life-like, no. Life has to meet several standards.

For instance:

-Most biologists consider a cellular structure to be indicitive of life. Entities without cell walls (such as viruses, RNA, or complex strands of proteins) are not considered life.

I'd say this would only apply to life we've observed here on earth. Otherwise you completely disqualify any artificial life or intelligence, and potentially any number of extraterrestrial lifeforms.

-A metabolism is required for a creature to be considered alive. It has to intake fuel.

This would be a requirement out of necessity. This program would exist in an environment in which this is no longer needed for its survival. Like I said, the sustainable physical body aspect would already be fulfilled, as it isn't the interesting part when you want to create artificial intelligence.

-An organism must be able to respond to external stimuli. This is of particular importance when discussing whether or not your program is alive, because without response to external stimuli, and without external stimuli at all for that matter, life, and your program, cannot evolve. Your program couldn't replicate a unique response to external stimuli, nor could it produce unique external stimuli, as, mw2xboxplayer said, this prohibits from exhibiting evolutionary changes. This is due to the fact that the codes that comprise both your program and the external stimuli program are preordained.

And this is what you want to eventually achieve with this process. Life here on earth, or perhaps that which preceded life here on earth, would not have fulfilled this requirement, but evolved, completely randomly, until it could do so. In this process you would actually steer the evolution towards this end.

-Reproduction. Life needs to be able to replicate itself.

The code would loop, make copies and randomly change (until it is no longer required) in order to mimic reproduction.

-Finally, life must, at some point, cease to exist. Your program is unable to "die" naturally (it has no expiration date), and it would be unable to respond to life threatening situations, as true life does.

Now why would this be necessary? This would not try to reproduce life exactly as we know it, as the life we see on earth is tailored to the environment here on earth. This program would be tailored as we see fit, and this would be its environment to respond to.

[Ancient Aliens]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I did say the code would loop and create copies of itself, and that all of these copies would randomly change until some copy would be able to overcome the problem. And then this, successful, code would create copies of itself and repeat the process on the next problem.


I'd say this would only apply to life we've observed here on earth. Otherwise you completely disqualify any artificial life or intelligence, and potentially any number of extraterrestrial lifeforms.


This would be a requirement out of necessity. This program would exist in an environment in which this is no longer needed for its survival. Like I said, the sustainable physical body aspect would already be fulfilled, as it isn't the interesting part when you want to create artificial intelligence.


And this is what you want to eventually achieve with this process. Life here on earth, or perhaps that which preceded life here on earth, would not have fulfilled this requirement, but evolved, completely randomly, until it could do so. In this process you would actually steer the evolution towards this end.


The code would loop, make copies and randomly change (until it is no longer required) in order to mimic reproduction.

Now why would this be necessary? This would not try to reproduce life exactly as we know it, as the life we see on earth is tailored to the environment here on earth. This program would be tailored as we see fit, and this would be its environment to respond to

.

These are merely the qualifications for something to be biologically "alive". Your program being susceptible to evolution, or being sentient is a different matter entirely.

[Himster]

What about a guy with so many prosthetics that he could be regarded as a space ship? Is he human.

[SigniferOne]

DNA does not create human emotion.

[Epicurean]

It creates that which does create human emotion. Unless you think that it has magical origin of course.

[SigniferOne]

It creates that which does create human emotion. Unless you think that it has magical origin of course.

It doesn't create human emotion any more than it creates human choices, which are governed by free will.

[The Dude]

It doesn't create human emotion any more than it creates human choices, which are governed by free will.

There exists no such entity as "human choices". Human choices are not a thing like other things, they're just a name we give to what we do when we weigh two options against each other.

[SigniferOne]

There exists no such entity as "human choices". Human choices are not a thing like other things, they're just a name we give to what we do when we weigh two options against each other.

Yes and emotions are a subjective experience produced by our consciousness. To claim that they're a thing is to beg the question.

[Epicurean]

And what do you suppose is the origin of free will, if not the brain?

Ancient Aliens, but life comparable to biological life is all asking for. And in what way does the process I have outlined not use the principles of evolution?
And I am fully are that can't expect to be able to reproduce the conditions that caused 'sentience' to evolve, which is why I tried to make it clear that any potential intelligence that would result would not by any means be similar to any intelligence we know of.
This is of course also true for any alien intelligence we might encounter.