• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Artificial Life

"But there's no difference between what we do here and what humans have always done when we invented fire, transistors and ways to split the atom," he said. "The more powerful technology you unleash, the more careful you have to be." A black pseudopod than snaked out of an improperly sealed tank, engulfing the researcher. "Killed by my own creation! Oh, the irony!" he said as his flesh dissolved.
Click to expand...

Yikes!
 
It sounds like the article takes itself too seriously to me.

For example:

Scientists eagerly talk of a new world of ultra-small living machines, where marvelously made-to-order cells heal the body, clean up pollutants, transform electronics and communication, and much more.

The researchers say it may be possible to make sweaters that mend themselves. Or computers that fix their own glitches.

Though some experts see this new technology as providing unlimited benefits, others worry about the moral appropriateness of human-made life and the introduction of new species with the potential to evolve into creatures that could run amok.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between a machine that can mend a sweater, and the evolutionary process.

Evolution occurs from mutations or variations within a species. Then one of those mutations/variations has to serve an advantageous function that allows greater survival. Then it must reproduce itself and wean out the weaker variations.

A machine "species" that makes sweaters does not have a self-serving reason to improve, except to keep up with current fashions, which change infinitely more rapidly than evolutions, and are far too fickle and unpredictable to keep up with. :D

"The ability to make new forms of life from scratch--molecular living systems from chemicals we get from a chemical supply store--is going to have a profound impact on society, much of it positive, but some of it potentially negative," said Mark Bedau, professor of philosophy and humanities at Reed College in Portland, Ore., and editor-in-chief of the Artificial Life Journal.
Click to expand...

Not anytime soon, prof.
 
Luke T. said:
A machine "species" that makes sweaters does not have a self-serving reason to improve, except to keep up with current fashions, which change infinitely more rapidly than evolutions, and are far too fickle and unpredictable to keep up with. :D
Click to expand...

If the "machine" was capable of reproducing itself with inherited information and the potential for the occasional mistake then it would essentially be as alive as any virus or baterica. Why would a man-made chemical that mimics the behavor of DNA have any less "self-serving reason to improve" than DNA itself? DNA isn't special or magical, it's just another chemical. DNA isn't capable of deciding that it wants to improve itself. Evolution is a natural consequence of the way the system works and not a magical property of DNA or any other chemical.
 
Look at it this way. the sweater machine has a code that tels it what to do. Let's say the code is damaged, by whatever mechanism. Granted the machine in most cases will stop working, but it's also possible that it will continue working in a slightly different fashion or different form. Assuming some sort fo replication ability in our sweater mending machine and a bit of natural selection, some forms of the machine may be able to survive doing stuff a bit different than mending sweaters.

Essentially anytime that you've got mutation, slection, and replication you're going to get evolution.

'Course we have a bit of foresight and can create sweater mending nano-machines with a bit of replicatory robustness to decrease the chances that it'll decide that the sweater would be best mended by adhereing it to your chest. But still, it's pretty much impossible to guarantee that anything replicates error-free even on the macro-scale.
 
I'm sorry, I just don't see anything which suggests this is "artificial life." Then again, it is only a newspaper report, too. I'm not going to get excited about a newspaper article. The terms "artificial life" and "artificial intelligence" have been thrown around pretty carelessly for some time now. Even the term "micro-machine" isn't new.

It will make a nice, scary sci-fi movie idea for someone and help to devolve people's understanding of life and intelligence, so they will be scared to death to buy a tie that changes to match your shirt.

edited to add: Glasses that would darken when you go out into the sunshine have been around since the 70's. That is a chemical reacting to its environment, too, but nobody thought to call it "artificial life" or "artificial intelligence" back then. Too bad. Could have doubled sales.
 
You don't understand how putting together various chemical compounds to form a synthetic living cell is "artificial life"?

What concepts are simple enough for you to grasp, then?
 
Wrath of the Swarm said:
You don't understand how putting together various chemical compounds to form a synthetic living cell is "artificial life"?

What concepts are simple enough for you to grasp, then?
Click to expand...

You are the one grasping at a simple newspaper article and getting all hot and bothered.

Maybe because it is something really, really small that gets you excited?

How about those bread making machines you can buy at Walmart? Ain't they something? Make the bread of life with various chemical compounds, too, and even a computer "brain."

How about the way you can hook up several people's PC's over the internet to work on the human genome project or SETI? That's cellular, isn't it?

But life? Come on! I'm going to have to see something of more substance than a newspaper report before I get excited.
 
Luke T. said:
But life? Come on! I'm going to have to see something of more substance than a newspaper report before I get excited.
Click to expand...

Then head to your local university library and start searching the journals.
Just out of interest, what do you define as life?
 
Originally posted by Luke T.

Glasses that would darken when you go out into the sunshine...

...those bread making machines you can buy at Walmart...
Click to expand...

The element that is missing there is the capacity for self-replication. Anything short of that is decidedly un-spooky. But if you combine self-rep with nano (or even micro) technology, there is a basis for some concern -- whether you conclude that the results deserve to be called 'life' or not. I agree that we aren't actually there yet, but steady progress is being made in that direction.

I'm not sure if it was Bill Joy who coined the term "grey goo"
 
We're not talking true nanotech here, people. We're discussing the possibility of artificial organic life - which is a form of microtech in a relatively primitive form - being synthesized from base components.

If Luke T. doesn't find this the least bit exciting, either he has absolutely no interest in science or doesn't understand what's going on. Or both, of course.
 
Wrath of the Swarm said:
We're not talking true nanotech here, people. We're discussing the possibility of artificial organic life - which is a form of microtech in a relatively primitive form - being synthesized from base components.

If Luke T. doesn't find this the least bit exciting, either he has absolutely no interest in science or doesn't understand what's going on. Or both, of course.
Click to expand...

Two words at a time just for you. Neal Stephenson. Old hat. Nothing new. Been there. Done that.

Geez, Swarm, you are acting like this is a totally new thing. It isn't. It's been batted around for quite a while. An article like this comes out every year or so. Didn't you notice they said it HAS NOT happened yet? It's just an idea.

Did you cream your jeans on newspaper reports of cold fusion, too?
 
Here's a blast from the past. 1998.

Aside from being known for his contributions to mathematics and physics, John von Neumann is considered one of the founding fathers of computer science and engineering. Not only did he do pioneering work on sequential computing systems, but he also carried out a major investigation of parallel architectures, leading to his work on cellular automata. His exceptional vision and daring, borrowing from biology the concept of genomic information even before the discovery of DNA's double helix, led him to propose the concept of self-reproducing automata.
Keywords: computer architecture, universal machine, cellular automata, self-reproducing machine
Click to expand...
 
Here's a blast from 2001.

The mission of the DCU ALife Lab is to engineer synthetic Autonomous or Autopoietic Agents. That is to say, artificial systems or machines which can maintain their own integrity and organisation despite (or because of) turnover in their material components.

Such Agents would be intrinsically capable of self-repair--and even self-reproduction.
Click to expand...
 
A blast from 2002.

The key to existence will be found not in primordial sludge, but in the nanotechnology of the living cell
Click to expand...

To many people, the idea of creating life in the laboratory seems like science fiction. Yet some scientists claim they are on the verge of doing it.
Click to expand...

As you can see, Swarm, I do know what's going on. I've been awake for the last several years.

edited to add: As for me having "no interest in science," maybe it would help you to know I was in the Navy's nuclear power program, and been an electronics technician for over 24 years now. There's a slight chance the computer you are using to insult me has a microprocessor that passed through my hands as I burned it on a DUV photolithograpy tool. Woo-hooooo!

And now my cover as an amorphous nutjob who can't add two plus two is blown.
 
Hey Luke,

I understand your point. I have argued many times on this forum that we are no where near artificial intelligence. As a programer I think I know the difference between human intelligence and the logic that computers are capable of.

In any event. There was a time when people said, "humans can't fly, just look at those idiots in all of their flying contraptions. They don't work".

Just because something hasn't been done doesn't mean it can't be done. It was said that it was not possible to replicate a carbon molecule. In fact there were so many hurdles that many scoffed at the notion.

I read a story once of one of someone who worked in the early space program. When he was a little boy his father took him out side one night and pointed to the moon. "When your are grown people will go to the moon" his father told him. The boy told his friends and teacher the next day at school. They all laughed and said his father was a nut job. Yet he lived to see humans land on the moon and his friend and teacher proven wrong. I think I will live to see artificial life.

I don't know how close we are to creating life. I think we are closer than you are willing to consider.
 
People have dreamed of faster-than-light drives for quite some time as well. If/when we finally learn how to construct them, will you be as blase about that as well?

Moronic self-satistified waste of protein...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom