I do not think that teleology is bad thing to imply. Cause and purpose are essential parts or every ontology.
I do not see any real difference between what i said and what you suggested. The intent is still the same.
I have already decided to do so. It is all in my mind but i need some time to present it systematically. I will write an essay regarding this along with some peripheral issue as a new thread. I have promised this to lambiguous long time ago but not able to do so far. You are also welcome to criticize me along with him.
Yes, there is no perhaps in it. Ontology cannot be completed without that.
If you can do that exactly, it would certainly have consciousness but the issue is whether you cane do that precisely and exactly or not?
The crux of the issue in this question is whether consciousness manifests from the complexity of the entity or is it necessary to built a live entity, in the first place!
If complexity can manifest consciousness, the machines would become live have AI and consciousness one day for sure, no matter how much time it would take. But, if consciousness is necessary to built a live entity at the initial level, the machines would never going to have intelligence or consciousness.
First two articles are quite good and help a lot. The third one is bit more technical.
If you do not mind, may i use the content of those articles in my essay?
Secondly, would you provide me a link to that German research also, whenever you will get some spare time?
A cell is a living being; a cell is the smallest independently viable unit; a cell is the basic structural, functional, and biological unit of all known living organisms; a cell as the smallest unit of life can replicate independently; a cell is the “building block of life”; a cell is capable of synthesizing new proteins, which are essential for the modulation and maintenance of cellular activities; a cell is able to divide itself into two or more cells - this process is called “cell division”.
The cell division is the process by which a parent cell divides into two or more daughter cells. So the cell division involves a single cell (called a mother cell) dividing into two daughter cells. This leads to growth in multicellular organisms (the growth of tissue) and to procreation (vegetative reproduction) in unicellular organisms. The process of duplicating a cell’s genome - thus: the DNA replication - always happens when a cell divides through mitosis or binary fission.
Three types of cell division:
Example:
A cell division over 42 hours. The cells were directly imaged in the cell culture vessel, using non-invasive quantitative phase contrast time-lapse microscopy.
Schematic of the cell cycle:
I = Interphase, M = Mitosis; inner ring: M = Mitosis, G1 = Gap 1, G2 = Gap 2, S = Synthesis; not in ring: G0 = Gap 0/Resting.
The DNA replication (the process of duplicating a cell’s genome which always happens when a cell divides through mitosis or binary fission) occurs during the S phase of the of the cell cycle.
Here’s a couple more ^^, but i couldn’t find the original specific links, though they are on this forum somewhere too. There is also a link to scientific american article which places the origins of thought in single celled creatures, there is some rudimentary process in all life-forms.
Feel free to use any info, if i come across some more specific works i’ll let you know.
A being does not have to be a living being when it comes to evolution. Non-living beings can evolve if they fulfill the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest), or others (for example: growers, breeders, raisers, stockmen) “help” them, so that they can evolve. So cultured cellphones can evolve - similarly to all living beings, regardless wether they are wild or bred like e.g. potatoes and sheep dogs. But that does not mean that cellphones are living beings. Non-living beings like cellphones can - nonetheless - be part of the evolution, if the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest) are fulfilled.
All that is good and very informative. I appreciate and thank for your effort. I disagree with nothing what you quoted. Those are scientific findings and I have no right to challenge what is found empirically. But, I have every right to challenge any presumption, even if they were scientific.
And, machines will have AI, life and consciousness, is only a presumption till now.
Secondly, there is nothing in your reply that answers my basic question. I did not ask how all that happens but why all that happens.
I am asking why, not what.
I am asking your basis of considering a cell live, and a machine of similar scale not.
If you want to consider any change in the entity as an evolution, irrespective of how it is happening, you can certainly call them living. But, i do not think that justify the true intent, at least in the context of this discussion. The change should be self propagated, without any outside help.
I guess you mean “their” (not “there”), but the said three principles are also not “their” principles but the principles of evolution. And they follow them by help of the humans, and in the other case:
Who said that it does not depend how one defines evolution?
I do not “consider any change in the entity as an evolution”. I also do not “consider any change in the entity as an evolution, irrespective of how it is happening”. And I do not “call them (?) living”. Additionally: Whom or what do you mean by “them” in your sentence?
With reference to living beings, yes, but not with reference to other beings. Evolution refers not merely to living beings but to other beings as well, if the three evolution princples are fulfilled.
I have seen comments of the experts and people working with nano industry in person. Contrary to what is projected in the media, the fact of the matter is that no nanobot ever manufactured in the realty so far, forget about self producing/altering types.
This all nano thing is merely at hypothetical stage. We can make only microbots so far. Smartphones use to have it. Most of the people confuse microbots with nanobots. Nanobots are supposed to work at or around the level of an atom. Everything small is not nanobot. The very basic premise of the nanotechnology is to pick a singular atom and handle it at will.
Secondly, though we can make microbots but the basic level, they no different than bigger machines. The only difference is that they are smaller. There is no such quality of like self producing or self altering in microbots till now.
Thirdly, there is a very serious doubt whether a nanobot can ever me made or not. This is because of the scale on which it is suppose to be. There are some limits to which anything can be artificially build. Some pragmatic quantum problems come into play beyond that. Theoretically, if you want to built or handle something around the scale of an atom, you need absolute ideal physical conditions like absolute vacuum, zero gravity and zero magnetic field.
Arminus, there is a limit to everything and that holds also. Nobody can cross that ever. Infinities are not achievable.
I will later read and reply to the other posts that you mentioned.
And that includes minimum construct for consciousness.
And you seem to not realize how nature itself produces self-replicating nanobots. Not only is every crystal a ready made self-replicating machine, but also so is every DNA/RNA cell. Merely drop either one into an appropriate environment and they automatically begin building more of themselves.
