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?
Is that the only thing you got from that post?
I said neurons + of sorts…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perc … physiology
Neurochemicals[edit]
Plants produce several proteins found in the animal neuron systems such as acetylcholine esterase, glutamate receptors, GABA receptors, and endocannabinoid signaling components. They also use ATP, NO, and ROS like animals for signaling.[7]
plantcell.org/content/14/suppl_1/S3.full
sciencemag.org/site/feature/ … 11-667.pdf
I have seen some german research which suggested the same, but couldn’t find it in a 30 second search
wikipedia article is dead. It’s not a “neuron of sorts” if it doesnt belong to any kind of neural network. plants have no neural network just a basic pathway of sending basic rudimentary signals via chemical movements. Because it uses some common chemicals found in animals does not make it an animal.
Plants have rudimentary behavoirs. It’s very simply why cutting off a leaf doesnt kill the plant’s behavoirs. Because plant behavoirs are very basic and are at the primitive, genetic level. All of the plant is wired with the same basic behavoir, which is “face the sun when photo receptors are active” and “grow”. it accomplishes this through a very rudimentary chain of cells, which slowly pass chemicals through the path at a slow pace. There is not some marvelous sentience at play here.
If a plant never died it would never evolve. It would be the equivalent of your thermostat. Second I’m sure you are aware of a thing called aging. After a while the biological integrity degrades and you die of old-age. You believe machines will never grow AI, presumably, because of their rigid nature. However there already exists self-learning and self-repairing robots which function as a hive mind. With quantum computing they won’t be so rigid. When an AI is exposed to the physical world, the physical world functions as an extension of it’s self, adding the necessary randomness and entropy to overcome it’s rigid nature.
GreatandWiseTrixie
I largely agree with your basic position, but what do you think it would take to make the jump from machine to conscious machine?
Image you are adding extra elements of tech one piece at a time to a machine/computer, at what point does it become conscious. If you added all of mans knowledge to its data base and the software to locate relative answers, it would be more intelligent than any human. Yet i don’t see a mystery item being added that would make it more than a machine still? It would still be a calculator but with words and meanings instead of numbers.
I think a snail is more conscious than that. There is something there [like with us] observing or it is an observer even. Or/ where would you draw the line between a conscious and non-conscious creature?
Further, is a dog conscious, but is it less intelligent or complex than your pc which isn’t conscious?
_
Some sources which may shed some compelling hypotheticals here, are the quantum limits of artificial intelligence, correlated with near death experience.
Well the universe is reborn in every moment, so it would make sense that it has some way to rebirth the observers experiencing it. That is if we consider the cyclicity as fundamental and universal. After that its a question of what ‘attracts’ observers? If we built/printed a human from scratch it would probably be as alive as a human born from a womb. If so then something is correlating or connecting observers with an appropriate body.
Theoretically it should be possible to give an AI consciousness? I think you are right in that the quantum space is where all that spirituality [rebirthing] takes place. If so then there would be some manner of resonance between form and spirit, a ‘like attracts like’ nature.
We perhaps have to think of consciousness as like an ocean, much as physical reality is at base too. Then that they belong to a further classification where they too are indistinguishable [energy and consciousness]. Interestingly, if that is so, then the whole thing can be brought around in a circle, and consciousness should be able to be arrived at by building up to it.
Do you seriously want to make a thread issue out of this?
It is a bit embarrassing to have to try to explain such things to an adult.
Decisions do not “entail discretion”. Decisions ARE discretion and vsvrsa.
You keep habitually injecting teleology where it doesn’t belong and thus can’t help but believe that consciousness is independent of materiality. That is a typically primitive, backward mindset. In a highly sophisticated techo-world (regardless of how evil it might be) such is embarrassingly naive. I feel like I am trying to convince a “man” that a machine can actually run faster than his horse.
Yes, monkeys of the world, germs, chemicals, and even machines exist and can kill you even though you may never see them. Virginia, the wolf is real.
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.
with love,
sanjay
I do not disagree with but that is precisely the issue also. Why cells are not machines? What is your benchmark of differentiation?
My argument is that plant cells are not machines because they are live and governed by the consciousness of the plant. What is your argument?
With love,
sanjay
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.
with love,
sanjay
Amorphos,
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?
with love,
sanjay
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.
But only if she consciously decides to … 
There has to be a decision, yes, and that means that there has to be an interest, a reproduction interest. Like I said (here):
In the case of adapting and replicating nanobots, yes they qualify. They seek to replicate and also adapt through experimental minute variations.
zinnat13
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2884105/
linv.org/edited-books/
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.
Arminus,
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.
With love,
Sanjay