Darwinbots Forum
General => Biology => Topic started by: jknilinux on January 12, 2009, 01:43:39 PM
-
Hi everyone,
Here's (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/sri-ssd010909.php) something I found interesting. The first truly artificial life might just have been created... Depending on your definition of life. Just wondered what you all thought. Is it really alive yet? If not, when will it be? Either way, it's still pretty cool.
-
To me it's life, but I couldn't tell you why. I do not consider zerobots evolved to reproduce life (nor any other digital replicator). I'm not sure if there is really a difference. In both cases we an artificial environment, replication within that environment and one could even argue a physical presence (chemical for the enzymes, and electromagnetic for the bots). Somehow it feels different. I guess I have more affinity for enzymes than for electromagnetic pulses and photons.
-
Wet alife has really taken off in the last few years. It's all pretty primitive, but we're not that far off from artificial bacteria. A decade or less I'd say.
-
The JCVI institute is actually very close to making the first artificial bacterium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium) already, based on M. Genitalium.
So I agree that definitely within the decade, and quite possibly within the next year or two, we might have the first artificial bacterium as well.
Here's a problem though: Will researchers need "dry" alife, like DB, once we can just make custom bacteria and ribozymes?
And ikke: Then would you think a clanking replicator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clanking_replicator) is alive? If it is, then is a "symbiotic" RepRap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RepRap_Project) alive? If a clanking replicator isn't alive, then what is the difference between a really small clanking replicator and a ribozyme replicator? Defining life is definitely a tough problem!
-
The benefit of in silico artificial life, like Darwinbots, is that you can run some very tightly controlled, highly accelerated experiments. Real life has lots of factors that are hard to control, not to mention even with bacteria it can take years to get enough generations.
-
And ikke: Then would you think a clanking replicator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clanking_replicator) is alive? If it is, then is a "symbiotic" RepRap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RepRap_Project) alive? If a clanking replicator isn't alive, then what is the difference between a really small clanking replicator and a ribozyme replicator? Defining life is definitely a tough problem!
Nice examples to provide food for thought. I know it is inconsistent, but instinctively I would not consider the reprap life. I feel it lack autonomy in replication. It needs to be told to (self) replicate by and engineer, so no life. But would it be life if I replaced engineer by phase of the moon? Is its autonomy decreased by having to need to tell the machine it needs to replicate itself, as opposed to any other device?
Maybe the discussion on this is life and that is not tells more about the human need to set itself apart from everything else. In that respect it might mirror the discussion on what constitutes intelligence. In order to set us apart from animals we have the term intelligence, without a clear definition. To have something that sets us apart from other lumps of cosmic dust, something that makes us unique we have the term life. In both cases if we discover not to be so unique, we change the definition we have.
Maybe in the end it is about statistics. Of all the matter in the universe, only a certain fraction has the ability to interact with other matter (due to physical distance, or chemical incompatibility, for instance). Of that fraction only a fraction can interact in a way that constitutes selfreplication. Of the selfreplicating fraction only a certain fraction interacts in a way that shows conditional use of external inputs. Of that fraction only a fraction is ‘intelligent’.
To make matters complicated, there is also the gliding scale aspect. The aforementioned categories are discrete. Either it does or does not. To what category does an entity belong if it is done sometimes?
-
That's most of life for you. Things we consider black and white, on closer inspection, have a gray area gradient between them. There are definitely things that are not alive. A diamond, for instance, undergoes virtually no change over millions of years. And there are some things definately alive. Us, for instance. But what about fire? In a particular sense it's sort of like primitive life. It feeds and replicates and dies. But if you don't want fire in your definition of life, you have to invent more qualifications (subject to evolution, etc.). In the end lawyers will determine what is and is not alive, but it won't change the fact that there is actually a large gradient of different life like processes.
-
A colleague mentioned being sentient as a requirement for being alive. A nice addition to the discussion, and a factor I hadn't considered. It has the same issues with definition and gliding scale as all the other elements, but was to me a relevant addition.
-
That's a pretty narrow definition. Would mean trees aren't alive.
-
That's a pretty narrow definition. Would mean trees aren't alive.
One could argue that for instance a tree's response to parasites can be proof of sentience
-
note that cristals also grow under the right environment, okay they dont replicate.
But how a bush fire, it does replicate to other trees.
I think with live, a definition is required, and that might get complex.
But I think it should respond to its environment, with a strategy to survive environment dangers.
For example the bushfire shouldnt run out of trees. So it needs a way to conserve itself.
A simple biological virus, folows simple rules often, but their numbers make them survive.
But then what about the wheater patern, its shifting and continously changing, and its a closed system on itself.
There should be a next rule I think that such systems are not called life, but be called environment.
An environment is a system that folows rules of its own, wich are generated by itself.
Its a system which is often chaotic in nature, and has no goal to survive, it simply is there, like space itself.
Then is darwinbots life ?
It is artificial life, in a sense that its enviroment is based on math, it folows simple rules so it can stay alive in that area.
The area is however verry limited, a bots definition doesnt work on a different planet with no computers.
So a next rule for more comonly known life might be :
That it can deal with its chemical environment, as if it contains a language, a system (biomolecular bioligy) to interact in its environment.
But maybe appart from known life it could also exist in, plasma, radiation, quantum fields, etc, things we now hardly understand.
-
My criteria for life:
1. It can mutate
2. It can make copies of itself
3. It can grow or change
In this I think we have two sub categories:
1. Real life made through some planetary event
2. Artificial life made by humans
But I could agree that there is a grey zone here which may be hard to define.
That's a pretty narrow definition. Would mean trees aren't alive.
One could argue that for instance a tree's response to parasites can be proof of sentience
The same thing could be said when you turn the key in your car it sends an electric impulse that starts the engine. Like electrical impulses from our brain causes the heart to beat and lungs to breath.
Maybe we're godly builders evolving more and more complex creations with our creativity.
One day we may have artificial beings walking around calling us gods that will in turn create their own things, which may in turn become more advanced to create things....in an endless process.
In any case these beings will have evidence somebody created them.
-
Trees could maybe be considered sentient if you use the philosophical definition instead of the scifi term for "what separates man from the other animals", and if you take a very broad stance on what sensation and experience mean. But then your definition of life is so broad as to be worthless.
-
Could philosophy be used to answear that? Philosophy in my opinion is more about purpose and meaning of things. To ponder the reasons behind it all.
I think we need to define some criteria that must exist to call something sentient.
It is difficult because you must question the meaning of the word and when it's right to use it. Maybe some words have to be redifined, like life for instance.
Maybe being alive means being functional, while dead means something that doesn't function at all, like a car without fuel. Maybe life is burning of energy.
-
The common definition of life I was taught in school was evolution, reaction to stimulus, independent reproduction, movement, made of one or more cells, uses DNA, and maybe one or two other points I forget. In my mind, instead of defining life, I would define life-like properties, and have something's "aliveness" be a measure of those properties. Fire has some life-like properties, but lacks any ability to evolve. Viruses can't independently reproduce, but they can evolve, etc. etc.
The philosphical definition of sentience is the ability to perceive pain and pleasure. It's commonly used in animal rights arguments. In scifi, it tends to mean something with the spark of intelligence or self-awareness which separates Humans from the lower animals (and a trait we might have on common with other "intelligent" life).
-
I'm still not sure that being able to reproduce should be a requirement. There are many who lack the ability to reproduce but are still living. Something more along the lines of, having the potential at any point in its life to have been able to reproduce; would be more inclusive.
I think death is a requirement too, but that brings into question of whether immortality for humans would make us less alive.
-
How about this: The earth is alive. The moon is dead.
The earth is like a living cell and we're just parts of the machinery.
Nums explanation makes sense from a humans part of view. But I think the most important is to find the real truth in all of this, so one can make a good judgement. We value things depending on how much we understand about it. For instance cutting down trees without a second thought is easier than shooting animals, because we value it differently.
If we think that everything has equal value on earth we might take better care of it. Not cutting down more trees than necessary for survival for instance.
-
That's a pretty narrow definition. Would mean trees aren't alive.
One could argue that for instance a tree's response to parasites can be proof of sentience
How about this: The earth is alive. The moon is dead.
Now you're getting in to Gaia theory
-
I think that the best definition of life is "a system that uses energy, requires food, can grow and reproduce, and is capable of taking on darwinian evolution.
but thats just my opinion.
-
I believe that a good definition for life should be as unassumptive as possible. For instance, we do not know for certain that some form of what we might call "life" exists within energy fields, or even a matter based life form which is not composed of cells, but a crystalline or molecular-tissue based structure. I believe that a flexible definition is necessary to allow for such possibilities. The more rules our definition has, the higher the chance that a discovery in the future will force a major revision.
This in mind, I'll attempt:
'An entity with the ability to change either in structure or in behavior, this change being initiated by the entity. This change may be gradual, or take place between generations if reproduction or division is in its nature.'
Hopefully this is robust enough, without being so broad as to serve no purpose. It frees us from some of the assumptions common in many definitions of life, I think. This allows for those things currently considered to be alive, while allowing for other, possibly very different forms.
-
What about fire? Doesn't fire "change in structure" as it starts growing and spreading?
-
What about fire? Doesn't fire "change in structure" as it starts growing and spreading?
I agree with nums. By your definition a tree is non-living, but fire is living. Or maybe it is just happens to be the easiest life to form.
-
numsgil: Flame is just a chemical reaction that emits light, so I'm not sure that it even fits here. It's more of a process than an object in itself, but maybe life could arise as a form of organization within an energy flow... Maybe I should remove the word structure from the definition though. That might solve this issue.
prsn828: I don't think a tree would be non living. A tree has the ability to change in behavior between generations because of DNA mutations. Thus, it fits my definition.
There are definitely many complex things to take into account. As far as I've noticed, we tend to either end up calling everything alive or make a definition that doesn't allow for unknown forms of life.
Here's the wikipedia "conventional" definition:
1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
By this definition I think some types of alife can be considered alive. Darwinbots and Evolve 4.0 seem to fit well enough, if any alife does.
-
Flame is just a chemical reaction that emits light, so I'm not sure that it even fits here.
Life can also be thought of as "just a chemical reaction". Fire is on the simple side of "life like processes", but there are even more ambiguous structures. Oil in water can form microscopic oil droplets which are sort of like life. I remember reading a long time ago that plasma under the right circumstances can sort of resemble life.
A clear cut definition is difficult. The wiki one is very specific. (When it talks about cells, it means biological cells. Bots can't be considered alive under that definition since they're just a simple simulation).
-
I'm glad I'm not the only one that knows about Evolve 4.0
I still wouldn't compare it to DB though; we are way ahead of that petty level, lol.