Here’s a little something I’ve spent some time thinking about. It seem the quest to create life isn’t as hard as one might think (given what definitions for “life” you may have, since this is hotly debated, they might not be very transferable). Either through DNA tinkering, biological/chemical means, or even in digital space, it looks like the idea of making a “lifeform” that acts like the stuff we have around us now, takes just a little know how and some creativity. I mean, what is life really? Think about that for a second… It’s ok… I’ll wait…
So yeah, look at life at its most simplest of terms, the bacterium. Just a little packet of chemical processes that are in a constant chain reaction that responds to outside stimulant and attempts to preserve and replicate itself. That’s… about it. When you scale up to big stuff like us, you see all of these little bits working in unison towards a common end; but the principles are still exactly the same. And with that, reproducing those simple terms can be quite easy. Heck, they even made a program to act just like that! But I guess it comes back to the question, “is it alive”? Then again, I think it gets mixed up with intelligence. Sure, reproducing a Rube Goldberg machine organism takes some work, but the ending result is simple, to the point, and probably not very elegant like what we seen in the macro world. That’s not really fun. What folks want to see is if it can talk back and do a little dance. But that’s not just artificial life, it’s artificial intelligence… and that… is a bit more difficult…
I think we’ll get there with both though. Not just making simple machines or programs, but things that can be fully aware and elegant like their larger real world counterparts. I guess the great quest of humanity has been to create a likeness of itself, either through Pygmalion art or programs or robotics… but it seems that we’ve put so much interest into not just making arbitrary “life”, but to make artificial “us”. And that’s what I think becomes the greatest let down when we see projects to make AI fail, because we, at our reptilian core, desire to create a persistent human. But again, I think we’ll get there… fancy programming and some advanced robotics and we’ll have a decent marriage of artificial life and intelligence. So until that day happens, I think I’ll be treating my toaster nicely… giving its chrome a nice shine… just in case, you know, if the Cylons decide to rise up against their masters…
Genetics also play a part in defining life. DNA is one of the things that is constant no matter the organism, all made of the exact same compounds. Creating life will be done more through bioengineering than robotics.
As for artificial intelligence, I have no idea how anyone could go about designing a computer that could generate its own new ideas. I mean, as it is people repeat the same things over and over, and we are supposed to be good at the innovation field.
depends on how you look at it… all DNA does is set in motion a chain of events; whether that be creating enzymes, replication, other things… a mechanical version isn’t such a far stretch. In fact, I remember someone creating this weird plastic thing that was able to reproduce itself; with some tweaks, I can imagine that it could seek out materials on its own.
that’s the big problem isn’t it? it’s not about just knowledge, but the creativity to go along with it. sure, we have the tech to create artificial intelligence of something dumb, like an ant or something, but a human? I think it’s something that will be developed at some point, but it’s going to take some time… we’ll probably have to let the field of psychology catch up a bit before trying to replicate what we think intelligence is.
For what I understand, at the moment life is often defined by metabolism, though of course it’s far from ideal (viruses for one do not breathe or process matter themselves, ergo, they’re more like constructs or robots).
A while ago I came across this lil mindblower, have fun: http://www.ted.com/talks/theo_jansen_creates_new_creatures.html
true, metabolism is a very important part of it, though the official stance has been “responds to stimuli and reproduces” which you can toss viruses into that bin.
but then again, what the heck do we know? the meaning and definition of “life” has been hotly debated since, well… all time! heck, the verb “is” the “to be” “to exist” is almost consistently irregular in every language, while this probably has no connection, I like to think that the lack of regularity in that verb says a lot about those who created the words.
Yup. Different languages, different ways of perceiving reality. Funny, I’ve written my BA on that..
Responding to stimuli? Need a broader definition of a ‘stimulus’ before I can separate the actions of carbon oxide particles from bacteria’
I demand definitions of everything! :D
lol, well there you go! that’s the very reason we all have a problem with this life thing… the definitions are not very clear and nobody can really agree on them.
but from a classical science standpoint, response to stimuli means something like if you poke it, it’ll retract… or give it light or water or something and it does something. yeah, it’s not a really good definition, but it’s the one I remember from my classes way back when.
It seems *to me* that the biggest barrier in creating any form of life is creating that first spark that triggers the chain reactions. Until we can take cold, dead material and create the spark that starts cells reproducing, we haven’t really *created* life. We’ve just altered and built upon something that was already there.
Artificial life/intelligence - we can work with that because the process of creating something that we provide the energy source for and can track how minute adjustments to its form affect its function - that has built in safeguards. If it goes awry we can remove the power source and it’ll run itself down. Until we come up with something that powers itself and spontaneously arrives as solutions outside its programming, though, I don’t think we’ve really created artificial intelligence.
well they have been able to make some basic self sustained chemical chains similar to the primordial ooze stuff that used UV rays to kick start it (if I’m remembering the article correctly). that’s a pretty neat trick! not exactly ground breaking as blinking in a dinosaur into existence, but meh, close enough?
ah, and that’s another big question… can a program become self aware inside the computer. meaning, can it not only be aware of itself and it’s life inside the computer, but be aware that it is a program as well. it’s that 2nd level up that’s the problem…
Hey you should do a SWTOR comic about Ashsra Zavros! (the sith inqusitor companion dont know if have her yet)
Druds, you changed your name back yay! You are no longer posessed by that SWTOR spammer!! :D oh, wait…
lol, im kidding… well, not really but i dont mean to be (too) offesnsive with that previous statement. I have to thank you cuz you gave me an excuse to post the following on this thread: I wont buy SWTOR but i like it for one thing and one thing beyond all other features: the plot!
I have knights of the republica 1 and 2 and i really want to know how the story continues, so tell me, does Kreia appears as a force ghost? I heard wookies live hundreds of years, is Zaalbar there? Tell me plz, plz, plz, plz, plz, plz.
nope… still have Khem… he still looks at me… creepily (incoming comic about that one!)
comeon Silly! you should join us! one of us! one of us! one of us!
Messing around with life creation seems a tad on the stupid side. Just wait, once we’ve done, those life forms will eventually get smarter than us and probably end up exterminating is all. I don’t want to be artificial life form food.
Though, creating life does look amusing. I’d love to see us accomplish it, but let’s keep only one or two of the things around.
I guess that’s the risk we run. then again, I have less problems with us trying to create a new intelligent life form than our current meddling with biological stuff, like creating new strains of things that could wipe out the entire population…
Every time I saw a Movie or game with AIs in it, they turn on humans…and rightfully so.
Humanity already have enough problem with itself. If we get to a point where people create AIs … well it won’t end well. Either they will make those AIs do all the work for them and become like Hutts…
Or AIs will realize how ”flawed” humanity is and try to take control…
Either scenario…it won’t end well. Don’t try to play God.
kind of the same way I see aliens as well… we haven’t, um, EVER gotten along with our own kind, so how the heck would we get along with another life form?!