Artificial Life

[Luke T.]

How would you guys respond to "we are on the verge of a cure for AIDS?" You know how many times my brother heard that one before he died from AIDS? And that was 11 years ago. The medical community learned it was pretty irresponsible to throw those kinds of terms around.

 

[Dymanic]

Dang, Luke. I'm sorry to hear about that, man.

 

[Luke T.]

Maybe we are on the verge of discovering whether or not we are on the verge.

If we are still here a year from now waiting for someone to create life in a lab, and another story comes out about being on the verge of creating life in a lab again, will you guys send me a bottle of bath bubbles for my wife?

Maybe these guys are thinking in geological time.

I have to say (with all due respect) that I find the logic of this statement somewhat elusive:

"If life were that simple to create, it would have been done already."

Was that a joke?

It is a long way from soap bubbles to a living organism. Obviously, I meant the creation of life in a lab would have been done already.

I suppose they will keep playing with the recipe until it finally works. Like Edison with different filaments. Persistence will pay off, maybe. Or maybe it won't work at all, and a whole new approach will have to be made. The possibility of it not working is just as likely as it working.

The pursuit itself is an exciting endeavor, I'm sure.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Luke T.

If we are still here a year from now waiting for someone to create life in a lab, and another story comes out about being on the verge of creating life in a lab again, will you guys send me a bottle of bath bubbles for my wife?

A year? What you mean by 'on the verge' is something that's going to happen in like a year? Well no wonder. I was thinking along the lines of fifty or a hundred myself. These are baby steps being taken, nobody's saying anything else.

The pursuit itself is an exciting endeavor, I'm sure

There it is.

 

[drkitten]

A year? What you mean by 'on the verge' is something that's going to happen in like a year? Well no wonder. I was thinking along the lines of fifty or a hundred myself. These are baby steps being taken, nobody's saying anything else.

That's part of the problem; what the scientists say isn't being heard clearly by the journalists, and what the journalists write isn't being read clearly by the general public.

From the article that started the thread:

cientists say they are finally ready to try their hand at creating life.

cientists say for the first time that they have just about all the pieces they need to begin making inanimate chemicals come alive.

[A]rtificial life now seems so attainable.

It is a dream long pursued by scientists who now believe that it may be possible to create the first artificial unit of life in the next 5 to 10 years.

Each of [the] critical elements has now been achieved in the laboratory, albeit in rudimentary form, and scientists say they are ready to try to put them all together in one working unit.

None of these quotes mentions anything near a fifty-year window; one explicitly mentions a ten-year window. From the tone of the article, it sounds like the scientists are ready to start assembling Lego blocks. So, yes, I think someone is saying something else. I don't know whether it's the scientists overstating their case (because it's a good way to get more grants) or the journalists overstating theirs (because it's a good way to get readers), but I definitely think the article is an attempt to sell something.

And I don't think I buy it.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Where did I say these are all the same? What I am saying is that each has made the claim they are on the verge of creating life for quite a while now...

Right there. Each claim is significantly different - and in different fields - yet you lump them together as "being on the verge of creating life".

You didn't happen to receive nasal radium treatments while you were in the Navy, did you?

 

[Luke T.]

A year? What you mean by 'on the verge' is something that's going to happen in like a year? Well no wonder. I was thinking along the lines of fifty or a hundred myself. These are baby steps being taken, nobody's saying anything else.

I looked at the article from the opening post again,and it says:

It is a dream long pursued by scientists who now believe that it may be possible to create the first artificial unit of life in the next 5 to 10 years.

So more than a year, less than 50/100. Okay. So maybe this time next year, we will have a "getting there" report. Then a "we can see if from here" report the year after that. Followed by "almost got it," "we're all over it," "send more money," and ultimately either a "progress" report or a "success" report, or total silence.

There it is.

My threshold for what constitutes life is actually pretty low, as anyone who has read my posts on the subject of abortion knows. I'm prepared to give full human status to less than a thimbleful of cells, and am considered extreme for it. So it isn't like I'm about to set ridiculously high goal posts for man-made life to vault over.

I don't claim to know the first thing about creating life. All I have said is that we have heard claims for the imminence of life-creation for decades, if not centuries, and since this is a web site which examines extraordinary claims with a degree of skepticism, I am hardly out of line by being a little ho-hum about yet another road to life-creation claim.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

We already possess the capacity to synthesize the components of living cells. Now all we have to do is put them together. It's not a matter of scientific discovery, just a very complex engineering problem.

 

[wjousts]

We already possess the capacity to synthesize the components of living cells. Now all we have to do is put them together. It's not a matter of scientific discovery, just a very complex engineering problem.

Exactly. From the article:

It is a dream long pursued by scientists who now believe that it may be possible to create the first artificial unit of life in the next 5 to 10 years.

They are talking about the first artificial unit here. Not the fully functional smart sweater or the nanobots that give you superhuman strength. They are talking about something far less impressive, but it'll be the first step and for that 5-10 years seems a fair assesment. We have all the pieces we just need to make it all work together.
It also depends on just how artificial you want. If you want something that is completely different from anything alive now then that is probably a little further off. But if you happy with just making a functional mimic of a bateria, using the same basic components of DNA and proteins, then that's fairly easy. Some might argue that splicing genes into other organisms makes the resulting organism artificial, so in that sense we have already succeded!

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by drkitten

None of these quotes mentions anything near a fifty-year window; one explicitly mentions a ten-year window

The source of the 'quote' in question being 'scientists'. So what we're quibbling over here is what a journalist said some scientist(s) said?

I don't know whether it's the scientists overstating their case (because it's a good way to get more grants) or the journalists overstating theirs (because it's a good way to get readers), but I definitely think the article is an attempt to sell something.

Like I said before, if you are going to rely on publications like the Sun-Sentinel as a primary source of information, that's a risk you take. The discussions on sci.nanotech, for example, generally take a much more reserved tone.

And I don't think I buy it.

Did anyone ask you for money?

 

[Luke T.]

Right there. Each claim is significantly different - and in different fields - yet you lump them together as "being on the verge of creating life".

I merely pointed out their own words, Wrath. I didn't say they were on the verge of creating life. They did. This current claim is just another one. It could pan out, it might not.

Each claim is not significantly different in that each claimed to be on the path to create life. By machine, by chemistry, by hocus-pocus, the claim is the same.

There are different "fields" of predicting the future, too. Crystal ball. Chicken innards. Stones. Planetary Meditation Grid. Pyramid drawings. They all are similar in their claim, and I will be skeptical of the next future-predicting "field" until they actually succeed in predicting the future. There's a lot of excitement about QM being able to predict the future in some people's minds, too. The latest thing. I yawn at that, too.

I give the field of science a lot more credibility in their claims, obviously, but they still have to come up with the goods in the end.

Few people would be as excited as me if a lab creates life. Or if we discover life elsewhere in the Universe. Either one could happen first. Or not at all.

Few people would be as excited as me if we figured out how to predict the future, for that matter.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I merely pointed out their own words, Wrath. I didn't say they were on the verge of creating life. They did.

You idiot! One claim concerned experimental evidence for a hypothesis regarding the origin of prebiotic organic compounds, one concerned the potential to engineer nanoscope machinery, and one concerned the potential to engineer artificial organic cells.

Only an intellect as ossified as yours could mistake them as being about "creating life".

 

[Luke T.]

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

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.

Moronic self-satistified waste of protein...

Luke T.'s inability to grasp even the simplest consequences of technological developments.

I think I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's just trolling.

Idiot.

You're not just asleep, you have your head lodged in some interesting places, too.

Behold the JREF moderator who can't distinguish between experimental models of abiogenesis, nanotechnology, and synthetic cells!

You didn't happen to receive nasal radium treatments while you were in the Navy, did you?

You idiot!

Only an intellect as ossified as yours could mistake them as being about "creating life".

Guess it's time to take my own advice about this sort of behavior.

 

[hammegk]

As a scientific hypothesis, that could be defeated by a single positive result.

Um, no. It would be defeated by any and all failures fully explained.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by hammegk

Um, no. It would be defeated by any and all failures fully explained.

In struggling to formulate a response, I realized that the problem I was having was that I didn't have a clue as to what you meant by that -- I was guessing at what you meant, and attempting to respond to that. Maybe a better idea would be to just ask you to explain what you mean a little more...fully.

 

[Johnny Pneumatic]

perhaps the attribute called "life" just chooses not to occupy & animate the structure you provided?

Oh good... a believer in Lifeforces. Care to prove?

 

[hammegk]

Oh good... a believer in Lifeforces. Care to prove?

Right after you prove you think, dream, and "exist".

Thought exists. Prove, or disprove that, or make a counterclaim.



Dymanic: Every artificial lifeform must be viable, or the reason a specific attempt fails must be fully explained, and presumably, re-engineered to "live" correctly. No, not with today's technology -- maybe in a few more decades (or centuries).

 

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Right after you prove you think, dream, and "exist".-hammegk



I'm making a reasoned reply to you, that shows I think.
If I slept in an MRI machine you could see I'm dreaming.
Let me kick you in the nuts.(not a threat) I think you'd have no doubt after that.

Why do you think thinking, dreaming and existing are metaphysical? Now prove Lifeforces.

 

[hammegk]

I'm making a reasoned reply to you, that shows I think.

Sorry, but no. Any half-assed computer programmer could throw some code together that would do as well. Do you think you are a program, or do you think you think?

If I slept in an MRI machine you could see I'm dreaming.

Again, wrong. I will never see that you are dreaming. In fact I think you are telling me a lie concerning the existence of something you call a dream. I never have had a dream; Disprove that.

Let me kick you in the nuts.(not a threat) I think you'd have no doubt after that.

The perceived and perceiving body provides I/O & computation; the question is what evaluates and uses the I/O and computation.

Why do you think thinking, dreaming and existing are metaphysical? Now prove Lifeforces.

I don't think they are metaphysical. They are "what-is".

*I* think, although actually the best we can actually do is something "thinks". Perhaps you are a p-zombie, or you have faith that "matter" in some specific arrangement "thinks"?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Let me guess: unsubstantianted claims and more refusals to define terms and explain distinctions?

Who was it on these boards who said that the people who most vehemently denied that they could be replaced with computer programs are the ones who could be replaced most easily?