GENIUS FORUMS

We humans and all other life forms are basically all part of one big machine called the universe and each of us is like a small cog, or spring in the mechanics of it. Essentially we're all just automatons of the cosmos programmed by causality to do all the things that we do. Keeping this in mind, at what point does a metal machine, a human created machine, become alive? Sentient? Sapient? Is there a difference between us fleshy meat puppets and our steel brethren? Some would say that it's our ability to "suffer" that makes us different. What if a machine were programmed to suffer? Would that even be possible? If such a machine were programmed to have the ability to suffer would it be ethical to have empathy for it? Are ethics important anyway or should we be fully utilitarian in our dealings with other life forms?

Mods, if this needs to be moved to "worldly affairs" feel free to move it.

Identifying differences in two materials is hard. I mean the difference between metal, and wood, and organic materials is thought to be down to molecules, and atoms. But I also include time in the mix. If time is an energy, then radioactive material is made from a lot of time squashed into an atom. Then you can make an atom bomb from all of this stored energy. A human probably has a lot of time squashed into them, and that is called DNA. You squash all of this time in the DNA, and it remembers how to created legs, and arms, and hair, and for each person it changes a bit.

So I think that the difference between a human, and a machine is that we use a special arrangement of time stored in our DNA. When the time is released it gives us our own special thoughts. When time is released in a radio active material it is released very fast, and damages other objects. When time is released in water it evaporates the water, but when it is cold the time goes back into the water, and time travelling backwards creates a snowflake shape as all of this water moves back together again.

So time I think is the answer.

You define humans as "part of a big machine". So they are little machines already from the first sentence. What's the point to ask then about the role of other "little machines" and parts of our world? They are already parts of our life, like external organs and as such part of the big machine. The bigger the role they will have, the more connections, reactions and activity they are able to employ, the more "alive" they will seem. In that sense the economy, the weather, the sun could be seen as alive. Of course you could think along the lines of negentropy if you want to go that route.

Pincho Paxton wrote:Identifying differences in two materials is hard. I mean the difference between metal, and wood, and organic materials is thought to be down to molecules, and atoms. But I also include time in the mix. If time is an energy, then radioactive material is made from a lot of time squashed into an atom. Then you can make an atom bomb from all of this stored energy. A human probably has a lot of time squashed into them, and that is called DNA. You squash all of this time in the DNA, and it remembers how to created legs, and arms, and hair, and for each person it changes a bit.

So I think that the difference between a human, and a machine is that we use a special arrangement of time stored in our DNA. When the time is released it gives us our own special thoughts. When time is released in a radio active material it is released very fast, and damages other objects. When time is released in water it evaporates the water, but when it is cold the time goes back into the water, and time travelling backwards creates a snowflake shape as all of this water moves back together again.

So time I think is the answer.

Do you think that the forces of distance and time intertwine to make simultaneity betwixt here and now, and galaxies far far away, impossible?

Cahoot wrote: Do you think that the forces of distance and time intertwine to make simultaneity betwixt here and now, and galaxies far far away, impossible?

I just use time as an energy. For example an atom has a nucleus which is the middle of the atom. I imagine time entering that hole as a liquid, and compressing down. So it compresses into DNA, and Radiation to power a sun.. like a toothpaste tube. I think that you are always in the present.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:You define humans as "part of a big machine". So they are little machines already from the first sentence. What's the point to ask then about the role of other "little machines" and parts of our world? They are already parts of our life, like external organs and as such part of the big machine. The bigger the role they will have, the more connections, reactions and activity they are able to employ, the more "alive" they will seem. In that sense the economy, the weather, the sun could be seen as alive. Of course you could think along the lines of negentropy if you want to go that route.

Yes, it's true that we're already small machines from the beginning. I just wanted to elaborate a bit.
What is your definition of "alive" exactly?
The definition that I prefer is the biological one.

Just because you prefer a certain definition over the others doesn't stop you from using the other definitions under different circumstances.

Russell wrote:Just because you prefer a certain definition over the others doesn't stop you from using the other definitions under different circumstances.

Yeah, that's true.

So in keeping that in mind, the answer to your question..

at what point does a metal machine, a human created machine, become alive?

..is dependent on when the concept of "alive" becomes convenient in describing the robot, or even biological creatures for that matter. Otherwise, there simply is no "alive".

Ok, so if you do consider a robot "alive" then what does that mean as far as the other questions I asked?

Orenholt wrote:Ok, so if you do consider a robot "alive"

Just to make it clear, again, we only deem a robot "alive" when it is convenient to do so.

then what does that mean as far as the other questions I asked?

OP wrote:[...]Sentient? Sapient?

These too are merely concepts that are useful only when convenient

Is there a difference between us fleshy meat puppets and our steel brethren? Some would say that it's our ability to "suffer" that makes us different. What if a machine were programmed to suffer?

Were we not programmed by nature to suffer?

Would that even be possible?

Probably not because it's easy enough for us as humans to realize that an ego programmed into a robot is really made up of parts and outer influence (programming) and doesn't really exist in itself. Us humans, on the other hand, value our egos and therefore have a hard time realizing and accepting that it's all just programming/not real in itself.

If such a machine were programmed to have the ability to suffer would it be ethical to have empathy for it? Are ethics important anyway or should we be fully utilitarian in our dealings with other life forms?

Empathy and ethics, to the degree that sentience is the basis (which is the norm for most anyone we encounter), are completely useless, as far as wisdom goes. If one were to have empathy for others in the sense that he accurately senses the ignorance in others and wishes to alleviate it, then I guess you could say that one has a rational empathy for others. Again, this too is a matter of definition.

I would agree that utilitarianism is useful only as far as reason and logical consistency are its basis. Interestingly, the attainment of enlightenment entails that utilitarianism, and all personal doctrines in general, are ultimately transcended as they are no longer needed.