dude its just some chemicals moving down the vine causing it to rotate for the photoreceptors
GWT,
I do not think that you are able to understand the issue.
With love,
Sanjay
I think it is quite clear what I mean by “life” and “living organism”. And as I also said several times: androids belong to the machines, cyborgs belong to the humans. So if humans wanted to become machines, they could only become cyborgs; and if machines wanted to become humans, they could only become androids. So cyborgs are humans, although with some or many features, properties, characters of machines, and androids are machines, although with some or many features, properties, characters of humans.
Machines do not have cells. A cell is the smallest independently viable unit. Machines are not living beings. Androids are machines. Cyborgs are humans. Humans are living beings. Living beings are not machines.
Arminius,
Zinnat has a point, thou maybe we are overlooking it. development per evolution of organisms is very gradual over a long time. There are no gaps within the continuum. So the problem is, of defining at what point can we say of a lower order organism, that it has no function in decision making? At what point, for instance the actions of a fly eating plant, can it be said, that there is a certain amount of understanding in terms of deciding to open its mouth and swallow a fly? Between the machine and man, there also exist a long developmental continuum, and if only a few human devices/traits/organs are left within its body, when is it, that it can be said to have
become a machine?
In other words on the cellular level there is a noticeable distinction, but on the molecular level, no such distinction pervades. It’s a structural and systemic arrangement .
I apologize for not having read the whole thread. I honestly still do not understand what is the difference between a cyborg and an android. To me, they are the same entities. Would you explain that?
This is true that living things are made of cells. But, at the end of the day, even cells are made of same basic ingredients as of machines. If we break down any living entity, which we can do now precisely, they are made of same inorganic compounds like water, carbon, iron etc. Then, what is that make organisms Live?
with love,
sanjay
Yes.
Cyborgs are humans with features, properties, characters of machines; so they may be on the way from humans to machines, but they can’t become machines. Androids are machines with features, properties, characters of humans; so they may be on the way from machines to humans, but they can’t become humans. The difference betwen cyborgs and androids is life as it is defined by biology.
Yes, but that is not what you asked. You asked me about the difference between cyborgs and androids. And here is my answere again: The difference betwen cyborgs and androids is life as it is defined by biology.
Again: that is not what you asked. You asked me about the difference between cyborgs and androids. And here is my answere again: The difference betwen cyborgs and androids is life as it is defined by biology.
Do you know the biological definition of “life”?
Yes, i certainly have, and very big one too. This very simple and common point can brought down the whole premise of AI singlehandedly and successfully too.
That is certainly the case. Actually, it is so simple and common that we refuse to pay attention to it. Like Tixe said - it just happens thus forget it and move on to the bigger issues.
Orb, if an alien, from such a planet, where there were no plants, would ever come to the earth, i am dead sure that he would look into the plants first before animals/humans, for the simple reason that they are more challenging to deduct sentience wise.
It is understandable to some extent that animals/humans have sentience, because they have CNS and brain. But, what about plants which do not have any such things? What is creating their sentience?
Secondly, i find it even more surprising that we are trying to invent artificial humans before trying to invent artificial plants! if we cannot understand and replicate a live plant, how on the earth we could ever replicate live human ever, which is thousands time more complex than plants!
Is it not like trying to land on Mars before moon!
Science says that human dies when its brain stops working (even that is wrong and i can prove it scientifically right now even on the net). Right! But, what makes a plant die? They do not have any brain or even a heart! So, theoretically, should they not live forever?
Has anyone answers?
with love,
sanjay
It is still hard me to understand except the distinction of life. But, i take it.
True. i certainly not asked this specifically in that post but is the thread has not been around this issue all along?
Secondly, what if i ask those questions again now?
I do not think if there is any clear-cut biological definition of life. Or, i am not aware of that till now. There are only vague interpretations.
with love,
sanjay
plants do not have sentience. humans and animals do.
That is merely a statement rather than an argument.
I can say the same that plants also have sentience like humans and animals. But, can it serve any purpose or can convince anyone if i would not explain my reasoning behind that!
That is how what we are supposed to do in philosophy.
With love,
sanjay
it would have no mathematical basis. If plants have sentience, why not candy? There are moving chemicals inside of candy.
My friend,
I am not competent enough to argue with you, about this issue at least. I apologise for my shortcoming. Please find a suitable match for yourself.
With love,
sanjay
Plants “make decisions” through auto-responses, much like a thermostat “decides” when to turn on the heater. There is no remote recognition involved, merely direct contact and response.
And a plant dies when it has systemic failure, no longer sustaining its nutrient cycle.
The analogy is very fitting, the plant as corresponding to the auto responses of a mechanical gadget, further points toward the view, that the plant, can be looked at as an evolutionary retrograde, most akin to machines. The composition of which have anomalous structural ingredients, where it(the plant) can be interpreted as more like a machine then a human being, judging from it’s actions. Therefore, the fact that the reverse appears to be happening, the retrogression into more rather than less conversion from human-ness, seems to further the view, that life, is more of a factor of adaptation, then to genetic typing. In other words, the function of a thing or an organism, determines it, as a type of thing, signifying a chemical or biochemical constitution.
Because they are not moving in the necessary patterns as like living things. Apparently plants have neurons of sorts, so it seems a matter of how many processes are going on, and if those processes are sophisticated enough to run concurrently and give neuronal plasticity. In other words, consciousness appears to be continuous, so has a pattern moving through the other patterns subjectively.
Perhaps it is possible that plants [all life?] have being and consciousness at some rudimentary level.
Problem with all of this is that i think you could have a computer which mimics all of this in machine-like fashion. There is something different about the info at work in my computer, to info in my mind. Notably a subjective observer.
If you made an instrument exactly like a human, then switched it on, would it have consciousness, or be like someone sleepwalking or some such unconscious thing?
plants do not have neurons. you will not find any scientific study that says they do. please provide some evidence that they have neurons.
it would not be less like a “machine” simply less like a “simple machine”. humans and ai are complex machines relative to plants.
Not convincing enough, James.
Decision entails discretion. There must be multiple choices available for any entity to chose from, otherwise it cannot be called a decision, but merely a law or default action.
If you drop a ball from your hand, it would hit the ground every time. It would never go towards the sky. So, can we say that the ball made a conscious decision to fall on the ground? Certainly not, because there is no other way in which the ball can react. Falling on the ground is binding on it.
The same is with the thermostat too. Its action is not discretionary but a binding one thus not decision.
We eat when we feel hungry. That is our natural action in that particular circumstances but we can chose not to eat, even till death. That is decision because we intentionally opted another alternative. A thermostat/machine cannot do that. It will always do the same for what it is designed for, unless you change its internal structure. It cannot change neither its structure nor its behavior on its own, means, it cannot evolve on its own but humans/plants can do that. That is the difference.
Secondly, a thermostat behaves in a particular way because we designed it in that way. We know that. But, do we know why plants/animals behave in that way? One can argue that they learn and evolve through circumstances. There is nothing wrong in that argument but why a thermostat cannot learn on its own in the same way? Who is asking it not to learn? Why it cannot learn and evolve on its own? What is the difference between the two entities?
Thirdly, plants are not that complex entities biologically. With the scientific means available now, we can deduct and analyze a plant up to the last pat of the cell. Everything is in black and white. But still, we cannot explain its synchronized behavior, why the whole plant acts for a common goal.
In humans/animals each and every cell on the body is connected to CNS through neurons, directly or indirectly. That is necessary for the survival of them. Even a single cell out of control can cause cancer. Cancer is nothing but a refusal of one or some cells to obey CNS. It starts living its own life independently from the rest of the body and we know the result.
This neuron network and CNS in the humans/animals integrates cells into a harmonious or unified entity. If this network is broken anywhere in the body, the affected or disconnected portion becomes non-active, and we call it paralyze. Right!
But, there is no such communication network in the plants. We have not found any. Every botanist would be agree with that. If that is true, how and why roots suck water from the earth for the whole of the plant, and why only leaves prepare food for the whole plant? Why should a stem of sunflower plant should be concerned about keeping its flower facing the sun all the time? How the stem becomes aware of the importance of its function? What is the communicating and binding agent between the different organs or the plants? Why every organ or cell of the plants does not declare Independence from the main body and not start behaving like human cancer cells, given that there is absolutely no governing network?
It is not surprising that a single broken nerve of that governing network can cause the whole of the human body becoming nonfunctional, but many times bigger plants can survive even many times more than humans without having a governing network at all!
James, there must be some binding agent/mechanism/entity in the plants, which makes sure that the whole of the plant always behaves as a unified entity. And, that is consciousness. That is what that creates life in true sense. Plants have consciousness too and, it is such a entity which we are not able to trace physically so far. But, it is there for sure, hidden and integrated with every live form. A live, decision making, intelligent and evolving entity cannot be created without consciousness. That is why machines will never be able to have AI.
You can say that one day machines would have AI but this one day is not an argument but mere assumption. It is must be established either philosophically or physically, to be taken as a fact. Your explanation of forming a particle through RM/VO is perfect but it explains the formation of non-live matter only, not live ones.
[quote=“James S Saint”]
And a plant dies when it has systemic failure, no longer sustaining its nutrient cycle.
Again, that is not up to the mark.
Why a plant or even an animal should die? Why its system should fail? Why they cannot live forever after having established properly once in the ambient? Why death of all living organisms is necessary?
James, forget about humans/animals but plants are there for million of years before them. They had for more time than humans to evolve. And also, look at their journey of evolution from tiny ones to huge ones. How much they have been evolved? But, they have not yet learned to live forever. Why? If survival is most important thing for any living entity, why they have not able to defeat dying so far?
What is the need of dying for the plants? Once established, everything works fine. Unlike humans/animals, they do not have brain which can produce hormones of aging. They do not have to fight for essential resources like animals do. Means, a lone tree should survive forever. Yes, they cannot grow beyond a certain limit because of the limitation of the resources, but that should not cause their death.
with love,
sanjay
No Orb,
You are confusing the issue. Read my reply to the James above.
With love,
Sanjay
Then it would not have anything to do with your former questions. But, okay, if you ask those new questions, I would appreciate it. (Thank you in advance!)
But, please, note that your new questions refer to another level than to the level biology.
The biological definition of “life” is the best one we have. There are also good definitions of “life” which come from life-philosophy, physics, system-theory, informatics (mathematics). Life-philosophy, physics, system-theory, informatics (mathematics), and also the ordinary experiences with machines have influenced some interpretations but not the biological definition of “life”, because it is based on cells, and cells are well known. Cells are not machines, and machines are not cells, although both have similarities and work similarly.
Another question is whether machines can evolve or not.
Evolution is an own-dynamic, self-organised process, and according to the systemic-evolution-theory its three principles are (1) variation, (2) reproduction (according to Darwinism: heredity), (3) reproduction interest (according to the Darwinism: selection [but that is partly false]). Self-preservation means preservation of the competence during the current own life. Variation (=> 1) means that there are and must be several units (often called “individuals”) because of the mutations, the variances in the genetic code. Reproduction (=> 2) means preservation of the competence beyond the own life (by having offspring [children]). Reproduction interest (=> 3) means the interest in the reproduction (the example homo sapiens shows that this interest can be non-existent or even negative). Can machines be or are they already part of this own-dynamic, self-organised process which we call “evolution”? Do the three evolution principles - variation (=> 1), reproduction (=> 2), and reproduction interest (=> 3) - also apply to machines?