| Speculative biology is simultaneously a science and form of art in which one speculates on the possibilities of life and evolution. What could the world look like if dinosaurs had never gone extinct? What could alien lifeforms look like? What kinds of plants and animals might exist in the far future? These questions and more are tackled by speculative biologists, and the Speculative Evolution welcomes all relevant ideas, inquiries, and world-building projects alike. With a member base comprising users from across the world, our community is the largest and longest-running place of gathering for speculative biologists on the web. While unregistered users are able to browse the forum on a basic level, registering an account provides additional forum access not visible to guests as well as the ability to join in discussions and contribute yourself! Registration is free and instantaneous. Join our community today! |
| Cyborgs and Digiforms; Artificial lifeforms acting as life | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Feb 11 2011, 11:27 PM (1,855 Views) | |
| Space Gorilla | Feb 23 2011, 07:56 AM Post #61 |
|
Primate Thinker
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yeah, I love that word. Wikipedia should do an article about it .
I think you are reading me wrong. I said biological, non-physical, and mechanical are astronomically different concepts, but they can all apply to a form of life, if they show some characteristics of it. I never said biological life for all of them. Just life. Non-physical life, mechanical, inorganic life etc. How would that example you gave above constitute life? Individuality and intent.
So what? Non-physical form of life. I don't think its breaking the definition of life. If anything, it would add more to the definition, given mankind runs across something like that in the distant future. Or creates it maybe, in that same distant future. You say technological singularity like in Orion's Arm is BS, yet you have scientists, physicists, and people who are into the robotics and A.I. fields all saying that we are approaching such singularity very fast. Where A.I. will not only be smarter than humans, but where they will become self-aware.
I wouldn't go as far as to disrespect and call - Isaac Asimov, Joe Haldeman, Alastair Reynolds, Wayne Barlowe & Hal Clement - rubbish and that they don't know jack sh!t and that they write crap.
I'm not a posthuman idealist, but I do have an issue with you throwing labels around, just because somebody thinks of life in a different way. If a sentient A.I., self-consciously, decides, to "impregnate" a lifeless planet with biological, organic life (using necessary means), how would you consider that to be? a) A deliberate intention on the behalf of an self-aware entity, who understands life in general, and expressed a desire to start it somewhere; b) A life that has arisen on a random planet, via "Random accident"; 'b' being your own definition that there no such thing as mechanical and/or non-physical life. Yet if humans do the same thing on a random planet, the life there would still be considered artificially created by another form of life.
I never said about current computer technology. Self aware A.I.s and machines. Those would be different than your own PC back at home, wouldn't it? |
Me on Deviant Art! ![]() Deus Max (Official) Deus Max (OOC) | |
![]() |
|
| T.Neo | Feb 23 2011, 03:42 PM Post #62 |
![]()
Translunar injection: TLI
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't think it would meet their notability criteria. ![]()
Yes, it is breaking the definition of life. Because one of the definitions of life is that it must have a defined, physical structure. Individuality and intent also have nothing to do with being biologically alive, even if they are important philosophically. The "singularity" in Orion's Arm is actually vastly different from the singularity proposed by "scientists and physicists". In Orion's Arm, it is not about superhuman sentient AIs, but instead reaching a "new level of conciousness" by increasing your intelligence. It's a novel idea, but has no scientific validity whatsoever. I am wondering what "scientists and physicists" you are referring to. Specifically because physicists are not really the ones to judge on such a scenario (they work with physics, not sentient superhuman AI thingies). Adding to that, a lot of the people who are in the "robotics and A.I. fields" almost start to fit the description for "complete loons", that have less in touch with reality than many realise. The "self aware AI singularity" is a nice idea, but it is really rubbish, starting from the fact that you don't need- or want- to create a sentient AI for any useful purpose. Creating a sort of virtual person for which becomes basically indentured labour, is downright unethical, and the processing power, etc, required for tasks such as emotion or conciousness, are really wasted when they could be set on more useful tasks- such as more efficient simulation optimisation, when modelling a composite wing spar for a new spaceplane. Real robotics and real AI/computer research differs from the ideas of "futurologists" and suchlike. Robots such as canadarms, Mars rovers and car-assembly machines far outnumber the science-fiction-y humanoid robots both in terms of numbers and usefulness. And AI applications are widespread in the modern world- without being sentient entities such as HAL 9000. The real singularity- the useful singularity- will come when there is a useful application of a generalist AI program. Such software would totally revolutionise everything from government to engineering- a really useful revolution in technology. Such a wonderous machine need not, nor should not, be sentient, and will have very little to do with the "singularity" proposed by the "experts in robotics" you cite- just like how nuclear power in the modern era has little to do with the atomic toasters and automobiles of the 1950s...
Ahem. Did I ever say that they are rubbish people who don't know jack shit and write crap? No. I just said "sci-fi writers" Big difference. And suggesting that these people are infallible is about as bad as calling them "rubbish", and their storytelling ability isn't directly correlate-able with their scientific credibility. Barlowe created eyeless aliens with mouthes in their feet for no apparent reason. Yes, they were awesome... but not particularly the cusp of scientific speculation.
In a way that differs from the scientific definition of life that has credence in the natural world... yes, in that case, I am going to throw around labels. It isn't anything personal.
Let's see, A? Why the hell would it be B? More importantly: What is the relevance of the descision of this particular entity to 'seed' a planet with life, and how does that affect it's status in any way, compared to say, me deciding to seed a planet with life?
Don't misquote me. I never said anything against mechanical life, only a self-aware computer program which some people decide is "life". You don't have to be alive to be a conscious, decision making entity. And you do not have to be alive to create something artificially... I think the source of confusion here is that your belief is that life and self awareness are implicitly linked. They aren't- unless this is a philosophy issue.
Not particularly, the software of an AI would presumably operate on far more powerful hardware, but would share a lot of conventions- including even some technical ones- with my PC. The superpowerful hardware you compare my PC to will be mundane one day... just like how my PC is mundane today, but is many times more advanced than the supercomputers of the 1960s. |
| A hard mathematical figure provides a sort of enlightenment to one's understanding of an idea that is never matched by mere guesswork. | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · General Spec · Next Topic » |




.





2:29 PM Jul 11