Are they alive?

On 2005-02-28, The Triad <wanderer DeleteThis @beeb.web> wrote:
> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnd244jr.qd4.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x8.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> On 2005-02-27, The Triad <wanderer DeleteThis @beeb.web> wrote:
>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnd232ru.ngj.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>> On 2005-02-26, The Triad <wanderer DeleteThis @beeb.web> wrote:
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>> I thought I'd revive the question. What do we all think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Our first reaction (Markus's, amusingly enough) was that it depends on
>>>>> the
>>>>> brain--however, plants are 'alive', and then have no brain nor
>>>>> intelligence,
>>>>> yet are alive.
>>>>
>>>> They have an neural network and *do* react to external input.
>>>
>>> *blinks* Plants? Describe this neural network, please.
>>
>> Something about emitters and receptors for certain ions like Mg... Hey,
>> I'm no biologist. Interesting enough a certain plant like being (they
>> call it "slime fungus" around here, but it isn't really, neither it is a
>> plant) managed to do the labirinth thing. Now that's really amazing.
>> (They put it in a labirinth with some food and it found the shortest way
>> by growing/letting parts die of or retracting - whatever you can call it
>> - to find the ideal way. A kind of IQ test.)
>
> Hm. Curious--though note that in the labyrinth example, it's somewhat a
> brute-force approach (unless we misunderstand something).

The point is that it figures the *shortest* way out.

>>> And take bacteria for a different example, then.
>>
>> Bacteria have no neuros, hence no neuronal network.
>
> Exactly. And to check, do 'neuros' actually exist, or do you mean
> 'neurons'?

Tyop.

>>>> Intelligence is a matter of definition, of course.
>>>
>>> *nods...* And (we think) irrelevant to the status of being alive.
>>
>> Yes, you'd probably call anything intelligent "alive".
>
> Eh. Not necessarily--what about a stereotypical AI, such as SHODAN? It

You mean the typical AI with a god complex?

> can't breathe, eat, reproduce, and Darwinian evolution certainly doesn't
> apply to it... intelligence, but death-based, rather than life-based. Or

It's fiction. Anyway, it didn't do much intelligent - only what it was
told to.

> rather, the concepts of both 'death' and 'life are irrelevant, as it simply
> exists until further notice.

Huh? Ah, get it now. No, I don't think there was much of intelligence
with SHODAN, but it sure put up a fight for it's survival, eh?

>>> Not certain we agree about the highlander part (though we're also against
>>> it, for possibly slightly different reasons), but the hardcoding part...
>>> yes. It's the hardcoding that we feel holds norns back from 'life' as we
>>> and the other organisms on and in the Earth know/experience it.
>>
>> The question is in how far we are hardcoded.
>
> Seeing as we evolved from single-celled organisms, I'd/we'd say almost
> certainly not at all. Any 'hardcoding' is due to our genes, which are by no
> means themselves hardcoded in that regard.

The chamical reactions in our body are pretty much hard coded... by the
natural laws. It all depends.
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better...
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.
 >> Stay informed about: Are they alive? 

"Vadim" <me DeleteThis @vadim.ws> wrote in message
news:ceIUd.697534$A7.980119@telenews.teleline.es...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> The Triad wrote:
>
>>> Nah, it's going to be turn based in any case. The only
>>> difference is if they're synchronized or not.
>> <snip>
>>
>> *winces*
>>
>
> Instead of wincing so much, would you mind explaining what
> exactly displeases you so greatly?
>
> Pretty much all games are turn based in some way, in any case.
> They simply go through those "turns" really fast, like 20 times
> a second.
>
> Take C3 or DS for instance. IIRC, it does 20 "ticks" per second.
> This means that the engine does something like this:
>
> 1. Examine world state
> 2. Do what needs to be done
> 3. Draw the screen
> 4. Go to step 1
>
> 20 times each second. If the processor is too slow, then the
> whole game slows down, because processing takes too long, and it
> has no functionality that lets it do less to compensate.
>
>
> My server is a bit different. Each client is processed when the
> data arrives, and some automatic tasks are done approximately
> every 100 ms. They aren't synchronized, so things don't
> necessarily happen in a particular order.
>
> Add a global clock, make each server process wait for a tick, and
> you get a turn based game. Slow the clock down to a tick per
> minute, and you get a slow simulation that can be played as if
> it was chess, doing huge amounts of computation. Speed it up to
> 20 ticks per second, and you get something close to C3 or DS.

Ah. I/We may have (previously) misunderstood the above situation, leading
to the post which this was a reply to; however, at present other posts on a
similar subject remain valid. Speaking of which... *heads in that
direction to read them*

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-
 >> Stay informed about: Are they alive? 

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrnd26lcj.qcn.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> On 2005-02-28, The Triad <wanderer.DeleteThis@beeb.web> wrote:
>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrnd244jr.qd4.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x8.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>> On 2005-02-27, The Triad <wanderer.DeleteThis@beeb.web> wrote:
>>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:slrnd232ru.ngj.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>>> On 2005-02-26, The Triad <wanderer.DeleteThis@beeb.web> wrote:
>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>> I thought I'd revive the question. What do we all think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our first reaction (Markus's, amusingly enough) was that it depends
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> brain--however, plants are 'alive', and then have no brain nor
>>>>>> intelligence,
>>>>>> yet are alive.
>>>>>
>>>>> They have an neural network and *do* react to external input.
>>>>
>>>> *blinks* Plants? Describe this neural network, please.
>>>
>>> Something about emitters and receptors for certain ions like Mg... Hey,
>>> I'm no biologist. Interesting enough a certain plant like being (they
>>> call it "slime fungus" around here, but it isn't really, neither it is a
>>> plant) managed to do the labirinth thing. Now that's really amazing.
>>> (They put it in a labirinth with some food and it found the shortest way
>>> by growing/letting parts die of or retracting - whatever you can call it
>>> - to find the ideal way. A kind of IQ test.)
>>
>> Hm. Curious--though note that in the labyrinth example, it's somewhat a
>> brute-force approach (unless we misunderstand something).
>
> The point is that it figures the *shortest* way out.

'figures'? Or simply tries all of them, without any abstract thought
involved, and then the most efficient one is used precisely because the
others are less efficient?

>>>> And take bacteria for a different example, then.
>>>
>>> Bacteria have no neuros, hence no neuronal network.
>>
>> Exactly. And to check, do 'neuros' actually exist, or do you mean
>> 'neurons'?
>
> Tyop.

Ah.

>>>>> Intelligence is a matter of definition, of course.
>>>>
>>>> *nods...* And (we think) irrelevant to the status of being alive.
>>>
>>> Yes, you'd probably call anything intelligent "alive".
>>
>> Eh. Not necessarily--what about a stereotypical AI, such as SHODAN? It
>
> You mean the typical AI with a god complex?

Well, that too. The god complex is optional--for another example, take
Halo's Cortana, though arguably as she semi-originated from a living human,
she doesn't count as much.

>> can't breathe, eat, reproduce, and Darwinian evolution certainly doesn't
>> apply to it... intelligence, but death-based, rather than life-based.
>> Or
>
> It's fiction.

So? There's nothing theoretical (so far) that says that it's impossible,
and often science fiction predicts actual events long before they happen
(submarines? Men on the moon?).

> Anyway, it didn't do much intelligent - only what it was
> told to.

....until it got the god complex. In any case, it could /think/.

>> rather, the concepts of both 'death' and 'life are irrelevant, as it
>> simply
>> exists until further notice.
>
> Huh? Ah, get it now.

Er... let's hope so.

> No, I don't think there was much of intelligence
> with SHODAN, but it sure put up a fight for it's survival, eh?

Yes--however, there /was/ thought. It could speak... it could plan, it
could create... it could imagine itself as a goddess... have you played
System Shock 2, as well as System Shock?

>>>> Not certain we agree about the highlander part (though we're also
>>>> against
>>>> it, for possibly slightly different reasons), but the hardcoding
>>>> part...
>>>> yes. It's the hardcoding that we feel holds norns back from 'life' as
>>>> we
>>>> and the other organisms on and in the Earth know/experience it.
>>>
>>> The question is in how far we are hardcoded.
>>
>> Seeing as we evolved from single-celled organisms, I'd/we'd say almost
>> certainly not at all. Any 'hardcoding' is due to our genes, which are by
>> no
>> means themselves hardcoded in that regard.
>
> The chamical reactions in our body are pretty much hard coded... by the
> natural laws. It all depends.

Yes. However, the /living/ part... the part that existed within those
rules, adapting to them and around them...

A similar parallel with norns could exist--/should/ exist, as they're
unhindered by natural laws, which results in cases like the Highlander norns
and the like.

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-
 >> Stay informed about: Are they alive? 

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrnd26l3u.qcn.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> On 2005-02-28, The Triad <wanderer.TakeThisOut@beeb.web> wrote:
>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrnd2446c.qd4.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x8.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>> On 2005-02-27, The Triad <wanderer.TakeThisOut@beeb.web> wrote:
>>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:slrnd232or.ngj.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>>> On 2005-02-26, nornagon <nornagon.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> nornagon InSaNiTised:
>>>>>>
>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought I'd revive the question. What do we all think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that life, as we think of it, is defined by consciousness and
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> ability
>>>>>> to learn and develop in unexpected ways. For example, we can learn to
>>>>>> ride a
>>>>>> bicycle. We can learn to cook a pizza. However, you won't find norns
>>>>>> harvesting
>>>>>> grain or planting seeds, will you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my view, Albia is not complete enough to support true life. The
>>>>>> norns'
>>>>>> world
>>>>>> is too limited for them to be considered truly 'alive'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hm... what would happen if you put humans in a really restricted
>>>>> environment
>>>>
>>>> It depends on the laws of physics. Even if a human were locked in a
>>>> box
>>>> with no other objects, that human's biology, physiology, would still
>>>> act
>>>> in
>>>> certain ways. Have several hundred humans in really restricted
>>>> environments, and in a few million years, the organisms would likely be
>>>> vastly different from the humans that were put in there.
>>>>
>>>> However, if you took analogy humans, and went over their bodies and
>>>> brains
>>>> with a... augh, we can't think of what could do such a thing.
>>>>
>>>> Take a human, make a... a digital copy of him/her, maybe, and then
>>>> make
>>>> vast chunks of the brain hardcoded, lock large parts of the genome in
>>>> place
>>>> and somehow--controlling all laws of physics themselves--disallow all
>>>> but
>>>> certain kinds of mutations, instead of allowing humans to learn to walk
>>>> on
>>>> their own, instead lock them into predetermined 'gaits' (which reminds
>>>> us;
>>>> that's another thing which should be removed and replaced by the way it
>>>> actually works in real life)...
>>>>
>>>> I/We would definitely be hesitant to call that new creature 'alive' any
>>>> more.
>>>
>>> I was thinking more of the grays in DeusEx, if you know what I mean.
>>
>> Ohh. Now, /that's/ interesting--particularly as they can't actually
>> reproduce. Also, even if they could, could they actually evolve?
>> Actually,
>
> They can't? Are you *sure*? They were *cloned*, but not genetically
> engineered...

Ehh. You've finished the game? Sorry to have to let you in on this, but
there were a few references to it in the first game, and it was confirmed in
the second--they aren't actually aliens; they're transgenics. Monkey-
(ape-?)based, probably, and in particular altered to be more resistent to
radiation and (if I/we remember correctly) cold--Roswell, the
'alien'-related beliefs among those without a high enough security
clearance, was just a cover-up (sorry if that's the wrong phrase).

>> that question is moot in any case; little point in asking it, as it could
>> possibly go either way.
>>
>> Also, glad to hear that you've played Deus Ex. Bubhosh game. *nods
>> sagely*
>
> You made me. Add that to the list of your crimes.

*grins* With crimes like that, who needs virtues?

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-
 >> Stay informed about: Are they alive? 

On 2005-03-01, The Triad <wanderer.DeleteThis@beeb.web> wrote:
> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnd26l3u.qcn.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> On 2005-02-28, The Triad <wanderer.DeleteThis@beeb.web> wrote:
>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnd2446c.qd4.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x8.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>> On 2005-02-27, The Triad <wanderer.DeleteThis@beeb.web> wrote:
>>>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:slrnd232or.ngj.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>>>> On 2005-02-26, nornagon <nornagon.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> nornagon InSaNiTised:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I thought I'd revive the question. What do we all think?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that life, as we think of it, is defined by consciousness and
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> ability
>>>>>>> to learn and develop in unexpected ways. For example, we can learn to
>>>>>>> ride a
>>>>>>> bicycle. We can learn to cook a pizza. However, you won't find norns
>>>>>>> harvesting
>>>>>>> grain or planting seeds, will you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In my view, Albia is not complete enough to support true life. The
>>>>>>> norns'
>>>>>>> world
>>>>>>> is too limited for them to be considered truly 'alive'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hm... what would happen if you put humans in a really restricted
>>>>>> environment
>>>>>
>>>>> It depends on the laws of physics. Even if a human were locked in a
>>>>> box
>>>>> with no other objects, that human's biology, physiology, would still
>>>>> act
>>>>> in
>>>>> certain ways. Have several hundred humans in really restricted
>>>>> environments, and in a few million years, the organisms would likely be
>>>>> vastly different from the humans that were put in there.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, if you took analogy humans, and went over their bodies and
>>>>> brains
>>>>> with a... augh, we can't think of what could do such a thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Take a human, make a... a digital copy of him/her, maybe, and then
>>>>> make
>>>>> vast chunks of the brain hardcoded, lock large parts of the genome in
>>>>> place
>>>>> and somehow--controlling all laws of physics themselves--disallow all
>>>>> but
>>>>> certain kinds of mutations, instead of allowing humans to learn to walk
>>>>> on
>>>>> their own, instead lock them into predetermined 'gaits' (which reminds
>>>>> us;
>>>>> that's another thing which should be removed and replaced by the way it
>>>>> actually works in real life)...
>>>>>
>>>>> I/We would definitely be hesitant to call that new creature 'alive' any
>>>>> more.
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking more of the grays in DeusEx, if you know what I mean.
>>>
>>> Ohh. Now, /that's/ interesting--particularly as they can't actually
>>> reproduce. Also, even if they could, could they actually evolve?
>>> Actually,
>>
>> They can't? Are you *sure*? They were *cloned*, but not genetically
>> engineered...
>
> Ehh. You've finished the game? Sorry to have to let you in on this, but
> there were a few references to it in the first game, and it was confirmed in
> the second--they aren't actually aliens; they're transgenics. Monkey-

Actually the one said they were clones from aliens... didn't play the
second.

> (ape-?)based, probably, and in particular altered to be more resistent to
> radiation and (if I/we remember correctly) cold--Roswell, the
> 'alien'-related beliefs among those without a high enough security
> clearance, was just a cover-up (sorry if that's the wrong phrase).

What a shame. What I was refering to was that piece of dialogue saying
the "they may be hyperintelligent aliens, but without their kind to
teach them they are nothing more than bald monkeys" or something like
that.

>>> that question is moot in any case; little point in asking it, as it could
>>> possibly go either way.
>>>
>>> Also, glad to hear that you've played Deus Ex. Bubhosh game. *nods
>>> sagely*
>>
>> You made me. Add that to the list of your crimes.
>
> *grins* With crimes like that, who needs virtues?

::shrugs::
Ask your lawyer.
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better...
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.
 >> Stay informed about: Are they alive? 

On 2005-03-01, The Triad <wanderer.TakeThisOut@beeb.web> wrote:
> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnd26lcj.qcn.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> On 2005-02-28, The Triad <wanderer.TakeThisOut@beeb.web> wrote:
>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnd244jr.qd4.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x8.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>> On 2005-02-27, The Triad <wanderer.TakeThisOut@beeb.web> wrote:
>>>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:slrnd232ru.ngj.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>>>> On 2005-02-26, The Triad <wanderer.TakeThisOut@beeb.web> wrote:
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>> I thought I'd revive the question. What do we all think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Our first reaction (Markus's, amusingly enough) was that it depends
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> brain--however, plants are 'alive', and then have no brain nor
>>>>>>> intelligence,
>>>>>>> yet are alive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They have an neural network and *do* react to external input.
>>>>>
>>>>> *blinks* Plants? Describe this neural network, please.
>>>>
>>>> Something about emitters and receptors for certain ions like Mg... Hey,
>>>> I'm no biologist. Interesting enough a certain plant like being (they
>>>> call it "slime fungus" around here, but it isn't really, neither it is a
>>>> plant) managed to do the labirinth thing. Now that's really amazing.
>>>> (They put it in a labirinth with some food and it found the shortest way
>>>> by growing/letting parts die of or retracting - whatever you can call it
>>>> - to find the ideal way. A kind of IQ test.)
>>>
>>> Hm. Curious--though note that in the labyrinth example, it's somewhat a
>>> brute-force approach (unless we misunderstand something).
>>
>> The point is that it figures the *shortest* way out.
>
> 'figures'? Or simply tries all of them, without any abstract thought
> involved, and then the most efficient one is used precisely because the
> others are less efficient?

What's the difference really?

>>>>>> Intelligence is a matter of definition, of course.
>>>>>
>>>>> *nods...* And (we think) irrelevant to the status of being alive.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you'd probably call anything intelligent "alive".
>>>
>>> Eh. Not necessarily--what about a stereotypical AI, such as SHODAN? It
>>
>> You mean the typical AI with a god complex?
>
> Well, that too. The god complex is optional--for another example, take
> Halo's Cortana, though arguably as she semi-originated from a living human,
> she doesn't count as much.

Didn't play Halo.

>>> can't breathe, eat, reproduce, and Darwinian evolution certainly doesn't
>>> apply to it... intelligence, but death-based, rather than life-based.
>>> Or
>>
>> It's fiction.
>
> So? There's nothing theoretical (so far) that says that it's impossible,
> and often science fiction predicts actual events long before they happen
> (submarines? Men on the moon?).

SDI? Come on, you can't take everything for real. Some things are
fiction and not more.

>> Anyway, it didn't do much intelligent - only what it was
>> told to.
>
> ...until it got the god complex. In any case, it could /think/.

No, it still acted accroding to its orders. Covering everything up and
so on.

>> No, I don't think there was much of intelligence
>> with SHODAN, but it sure put up a fight for it's survival, eh?
>
> Yes--however, there /was/ thought. It could speak... it could plan, it
> could create... it could imagine itself as a goddess... have you played
> System Shock 2, as well as System Shock?

Nope. Don't tell me they revived SHODAN...

>>>>> Not certain we agree about the highlander part (though we're also
>>>>> against
>>>>> it, for possibly slightly different reasons), but the hardcoding
>>>>> part...
>>>>> yes. It's the hardcoding that we feel holds norns back from 'life' as
>>>>> we
>>>>> and the other organisms on and in the Earth know/experience it.
>>>>
>>>> The question is in how far we are hardcoded.
>>>
>>> Seeing as we evolved from single-celled organisms, I'd/we'd say almost
>>> certainly not at all. Any 'hardcoding' is due to our genes, which are by
>>> no
>>> means themselves hardcoded in that regard.
>>
>> The chamical reactions in our body are pretty much hard coded... by the
>> natural laws. It all depends.
>
> Yes. However, the /living/ part... the part that existed within those
> rules, adapting to them and around them...
>
> A similar parallel with norns could exist--/should/ exist, as they're
> unhindered by natural laws, which results in cases like the Highlander norns
> and the like.

They have other limits, though.
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better...
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.
 >> Stay informed about: Are they alive? 

Stephen,

I've dealt with this question with my high school Anatomy and Biology
students over the past 6 years. The general consensus is that they would
fail a strict "is it alive test" due to not being made of cells, as well as
quibbles on several of the other life characterisctics sought. It seems to
best fit the viral model as a "semi-living" particle. I know that is
straddling the fence but it is the best we could do with the incomplete and
vague definition of life that is currently accepted by the scientific
community.

Ken Albin
St. Augustine, Florida
 >> Stay informed about: Are they alive? 

On 2005-03-01, Ken Albin <albink.TakeThisOut@aug.com> wrote:
> Stephen,
>
> I've dealt with this question with my high school Anatomy and Biology
> students over the past 6 years. The general consensus is that they would
> fail a strict "is it alive test" due to not being made of cells, as well as
> quibbles on several of the other life characterisctics sought. It seems to
> best fit the viral model as a "semi-living" particle. I know that is
> straddling the fence but it is the best we could do with the incomplete and
> vague definition of life that is currently accepted by the scientific
> community.
>
> Ken Albin
> St. Augustine, Florida

::nods::
Thanks for you contribution. (Look at all the lurkers...)
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better...
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.
 >> Stay informed about: Are they alive? 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Thomas J. Boschloo wrote:
| bd wrote:
|
|>>Thomas J. Boschloo wrote:
|>>| nornagon wrote:
|>>|
|>>|>>Here's something Steve Grand wrote way back in 1997
|>>|>>(http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.games.creatures/browse_frm/thread/fa64f71ac3135322/6c80cec0c5d7dfe5?q=&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fenc_author%3DNEh2bRgAAABpnzTRIR4pTfVqJv-9flJkWKLNRqB-u4_S4z0CNL-NQg%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#6c80cec0c5d7dfe5)
|>>
|>>|
|>>|
|>>| <snipped long, but very interesting question>
|>>|
|>>|>>I thought I'd revive the question. What do we all think?
|>>|
|>>|
|>>| You would need to device some kind of Turing Test where people are
|>>| pretending to be Norns and other Norns are executed by a computer.
If an
|>>| observer can't tell the real Norns from the human operated Norns, the
|>>| Norns should be considered alive.
|>>|
|>>| To put it another way: If a human can fool an observer into thinking
|>>| that he or she is a Norn then the assumption that a Norn is not alive
|>>| will result in the conclusion that the Human is also not alive. This is
|>>| clearly false (but how do you proof Humans themselves are alive?), thus
|>>| the opposite must be true and the Norns would be alive!
|>>
|>>Unfortunately, this doesn't quite work. To take it to an extreme:
|>>Put a rock and a human ar computer consoles. Tell the human to pretend
|>>to be a rock at a console. Since a person on the other end can't tell
|>>the difference, by your logic, the rock must be alive.
|
|
| I guess the test would be inconclusive in this case as there was nothing
| to observe.

Put a beetle or something in the driver's seat then

|>>Intelligent life can reduce the extent of its capabilities it shows.
|>>Because of this, your test fails.
|
|
| You could also fake an IQ test to have a much lower score than your real
| IQ. Still, the test is useful for determining someones intelligence. I
| would be more worried about humans that would start philosophical
| conversations with the keyboard operators instead of the usual 'Dab flib'.

They are not following the test regime, certainly.

|>>Moreover, if someone made a non-alive sentient thing of some sort (AI
|>>program maybe?), would that not change the conclusion of the test if it
|>>was connected instead of the human? Even though it may be acting
|>>identically to the human?
|
|
| My point would be that the non-alive sentient thing should be considered
| alive since you cannot tell it from the real thing! That is the whole
| point of the Turing test where an interrogator behind a terminal has to
| tell a computer from a human by asking questions.

There is a vital difference between your test and the turing test:
- - In the turing test, non-sentient things cannot emulate sentient
things, and the sentient things are not trying to emulate non-sentient
things (though they could).
- - In your test, while non-alive things are unable to emulate life, the
alive things are trying their hardest to emulate non-life - and will
quite probably succeed, with some practice.

This invalidates the reasoning behind the test - namely, both sides try
to act as sentient as possible and the one which is less sentient fails.
In yours, one just does whatever while the other lowers itself to the
first's level. There's really no correspondence.

|>>| Of course, the humans would have the same input neurons the Norns would
|>>| have, otherwise the humans would have an unfair advantage over the
|>>| Norns. Their actions would also be limited to the things a Norn can do.
|>>| AFAIK language is hardcoded in the Norns and not part of the
|>>| neurological brain.
|>>
|>>I can also argue the human will always fail at this - we just can't
|>>emulate another being at the speed needed, and could not interface with
|>>the console fast enough.
|
|
| You could also make the creatures game turn based. It would take very
| long though I guess..

And no more conclusive.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQiX7xeBz3eKRGXGfAQOxqAf/VWDlLXGTPn7u9pADliRs6VRMUPwOPKca
WAfbZ0UWf+Q+rGF8MxXf02J8aO1jEqnXv7dPi6rKAQbip3YSwHHI54IOMEqRZQqU
Dcl3BDHf4PPGjs6vTegQYz6HY9tAVPCyBOJLyQPA3yoRB2MMOCKralxJ1hPbjIYQ
dJCVta0Af+VK3h18VtqwqLGwJwF9r/kAUqe9CC47XkII13TluXxxLgGgKD++cN7p
lxMGGd0fifaV3CfdwO3ugaE+NAhDMLMfdqbJ5uRbj36bPoeXu1ik/e9h37GA+mRn
wSDY/QeSsKD9r8NxNbH0oJ49Afh03dSyGDremHUidxz3My39cFyq0Q==
=qLdD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 >> Stay informed about: Are they alive? 

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrnd28sos.s6b.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> On 2005-03-01, The Triad <wanderer RemoveThis @beeb.web> wrote:
>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrnd26lcj.qcn.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>> On 2005-02-28, The Triad <wanderer RemoveThis @beeb.web> wrote:
>>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:slrnd244jr.qd4.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x8.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>>> On 2005-02-27, The Triad <wanderer RemoveThis @beeb.web> wrote:
>>>>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:slrnd232ru.ngj.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>>>>> On 2005-02-26, The Triad <wanderer RemoveThis @beeb.web> wrote:
>>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>>> I thought I'd revive the question. What do we all think?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Our first reaction (Markus's, amusingly enough) was that it depends
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> brain--however, plants are 'alive', and then have no brain nor
>>>>>>>> intelligence,
>>>>>>>> yet are alive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They have an neural network and *do* react to external input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *blinks* Plants? Describe this neural network, please.
>>>>>
>>>>> Something about emitters and receptors for certain ions like Mg...
>>>>> Hey,
>>>>> I'm no biologist. Interesting enough a certain plant like being (they
>>>>> call it "slime fungus" around here, but it isn't really, neither it is
>>>>> a
>>>>> plant) managed to do the labirinth thing. Now that's really amazing.
>>>>> (They put it in a labirinth with some food and it found the shortest
>>>>> way
>>>>> by growing/letting parts die of or retracting - whatever you can call
>>>>> it
>>>>> - to find the ideal way. A kind of IQ test.)
>>>>
>>>> Hm. Curious--though note that in the labyrinth example, it's somewhat
>>>> a
>>>> brute-force approach (unless we misunderstand something).
>>>
>>> The point is that it figures the *shortest* way out.
>>
>> 'figures'? Or simply tries all of them, without any abstract thought
>> involved, and then the most efficient one is used precisely because the
>> others are less efficient?
>
> What's the difference really?

In the case of 'intelligent' life, we at least /understand/ why something is
one thing, and another thing another; we can plan our actions, think
abstractly, generalise beyond the immediate sensations and requirements
perceptible.

>>>>>>> Intelligence is a matter of definition, of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *nods...* And (we think) irrelevant to the status of being alive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you'd probably call anything intelligent "alive".
>>>>
>>>> Eh. Not necessarily--what about a stereotypical AI, such as SHODAN?
>>>> It
>>>
>>> You mean the typical AI with a god complex?
>>
>> Well, that too. The god complex is optional--for another example, take
>> Halo's Cortana, though arguably as she semi-originated from a living
>> human,
>> she doesn't count as much.
>
> Didn't play Halo.

Pity. Ah, well.

>>>> can't breathe, eat, reproduce, and Darwinian evolution certainly
>>>> doesn't
>>>> apply to it... intelligence, but death-based, rather than life-based.
>>>> Or
>>>
>>> It's fiction.
>>
>> So? There's nothing theoretical (so far) that says that it's impossible,
>> and often science fiction predicts actual events long before they happen
>> (submarines? Men on the moon?).
>
> SDI?

....what?

> Come on, you can't take everything for real. Some things are
> fiction and not more.

True. But some day...

>>> Anyway, it didn't do much intelligent - only what it was
>>> told to.
>>
>> ...until it got the god complex. In any case, it could /think/.
>
> No, it still acted accroding to its orders. Covering everything up and
> so on.

Er? 'according to its orders'? With its ethical restraints removed, it
reevaluated its priorities and started killing everyone! Intelligently!
And remember the giant laser, and the annelids as well!

>>> No, I don't think there was much of intelligence
>>> with SHODAN, but it sure put up a fight for it's survival, eh?
>>
>> Yes--however, there /was/ thought. It could speak... it could plan, it
>> could create... it could imagine itself as a goddess... have you played
>> System Shock 2, as well as System Shock?
>
> Nope. Don't tell me they revived SHODAN...

Heh. Admittedly, this is a bit of a spoiler... but do you remember that
'grove' which had /already/ been ejected...?

Anyway, we've said too much already. *shifty eyes* The plot is more
complex than you might imagine, and quite enjoyable.

>>>>>> Not certain we agree about the highlander part (though we're also
>>>>>> against
>>>>>> it, for possibly slightly different reasons), but the hardcoding
>>>>>> part...
>>>>>> yes. It's the hardcoding that we feel holds norns back from 'life'
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> and the other organisms on and in the Earth know/experience it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question is in how far we are hardcoded.
>>>>
>>>> Seeing as we evolved from single-celled organisms, I'd/we'd say almost
>>>> certainly not at all. Any 'hardcoding' is due to our genes, which are
>>>> by
>>>> no
>>>> means themselves hardcoded in that regard.
>>>
>>> The chamical reactions in our body are pretty much hard coded... by the
>>> natural laws. It all depends.
>>
>> Yes. However, the /living/ part... the part that existed within those
>> rules, adapting to them and around them...
>>
>> A similar parallel with norns could exist--/should/ exist, as they're
>> unhindered by natural laws, which results in cases like the Highlander
>> norns
>> and the like.
>
> They have other limits, though.

/Exactly/. The mental hardcoding, for example, which under Albian natural
laws /cannot/ be broken, /cannot/ be changed.

Thus, the desire to free their minds.

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-
 >> Stay informed about: Are they alive? 

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrnd28shj.s6b.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> On 2005-03-01, The Triad <wanderer.RemoveThis@beeb.web> wrote:
>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrnd26l3u.qcn.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>> On 2005-02-28, The Triad <wanderer.RemoveThis@beeb.web> wrote:
>>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:slrnd2446c.qd4.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x8.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>>> On 2005-02-27, The Triad <wanderer.RemoveThis@beeb.web> wrote:
>>>>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:slrnd232or.ngj.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>>>>> On 2005-02-26, nornagon <nornagon.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> nornagon InSaNiTised:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I thought I'd revive the question. What do we all think?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that life, as we think of it, is defined by consciousness
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> ability
>>>>>>>> to learn and develop in unexpected ways. For example, we can learn
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> ride a
>>>>>>>> bicycle. We can learn to cook a pizza. However, you won't find
>>>>>>>> norns
>>>>>>>> harvesting
>>>>>>>> grain or planting seeds, will you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In my view, Albia is not complete enough to support true life. The
>>>>>>>> norns'
>>>>>>>> world
>>>>>>>> is too limited for them to be considered truly 'alive'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hm... what would happen if you put humans in a really restricted
>>>>>>> environment
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It depends on the laws of physics. Even if a human were locked in a
>>>>>> box
>>>>>> with no other objects, that human's biology, physiology, would still
>>>>>> act
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> certain ways. Have several hundred humans in really restricted
>>>>>> environments, and in a few million years, the organisms would likely
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> vastly different from the humans that were put in there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, if you took analogy humans, and went over their bodies and
>>>>>> brains
>>>>>> with a... augh, we can't think of what could do such a thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Take a human, make a... a digital copy of him/her, maybe, and then
>>>>>> make
>>>>>> vast chunks of the brain hardcoded, lock large parts of the genome in
>>>>>> place
>>>>>> and somehow--controlling all laws of physics themselves--disallow all
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> certain kinds of mutations, instead of allowing humans to learn to
>>>>>> walk
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> their own, instead lock them into predetermined 'gaits' (which
>>>>>> reminds
>>>>>> us;
>>>>>> that's another thing which should be removed and replaced by the way
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> actually works in real life)...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I/We would definitely be hesitant to call that new creature 'alive'
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> more.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was thinking more of the grays in DeusEx, if you know what I mean.
>>>>
>>>> Ohh. Now, /that's/ interesting--particularly as they can't actually
>>>> reproduce. Also, even if they could, could they actually evolve?
>>>> Actually,
>>>
>>> They can't? Are you *sure*? They were *cloned*, but not genetically
>>> engineered...
>>
>> Ehh. You've finished the game? Sorry to have to let you in on this, but
>> there were a few references to it in the first game, and it was confirmed
>> in
>> the second--they aren't actually aliens; they're transgenics. Monkey-
>
> Actually the one said they were clones from aliens... didn't play the
> second.

How much did you listen to? How much did you read? Some believed that they
were, but there's at least one data-thingamajig which identifies them as
transgenics (though at that point, one cannot trust either source). And
there's also that computer, shortly before the part about the 'giddy
aquiescence'...

>> (ape-?)based, probably, and in particular altered to be more resistent to
>> radiation and (if I/we remember correctly) cold--Roswell, the
>> 'alien'-related beliefs among those without a high enough security
>> clearance, was just a cover-up (sorry if that's the wrong phrase).
>
> What a shame. What I was refering to was that piece of dialogue saying
> the "they may be hyperintelligent aliens, but without their kind to
> teach them they are nothing more than bald monkeys" or something like
> that.

*nods* Their species might have created the reactors, but they can't
operate them, because they're clones... an interesting concept, definitely.
However, the person who said it didn't have a high enough security clearance
to know the truth, and was probably allowed to believe the propagated myth,
which... *muses irrelevantly*

>>>> that question is moot in any case; little point in asking it, as it
>>>> could
>>>> possibly go either way.
>>>>
>>>> Also, glad to hear that you've played Deus Ex. Bubhosh game. *nods
>>>> sagely*
>>>
>>> You made me. Add that to the list of your crimes.
>>
>> *grins* With crimes like that, who needs virtues?
>
> ::shrugs::
> Ask your lawyer.

Thingamajig.

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-
 >> Stay informed about: Are they alive? 

On 2005-03-02, The Triad <wanderer.TakeThisOut@beeb.web> wrote:
> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnd28shj.s6b.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>>>>>>>> I thought I'd revive the question. W