We call Donald Trump and Boris Johnston and his cat and the mice that the cat hunts and the fleas on the mice and the coronavirus etc LIVING. But Boris's desk and his TV and the computer program that beats him at chess and and his electronic android servant (soon!) and windmills (cf Don Quixote) and holograms and ghosts we call NOT LIVING. But what is the difference? As a mathematical kind of person I would really like to know ... and rather precisely... it matters for agent based modelling etc
Note -- the difference is surely not about reproduction -- computer programs and machines can easily generate and distribute copies of themselves.
James Doran ,
I will try at most to reframe the question into sub problems to tackle in terms of parameters that will lead hopefully to something that you can use:
I really think that the last point is the most critical one. Under the connectionist paradigm:
- We still have not built complex enough systems to be considered sentient (I think this is more achievable for people to accept than "liveness") and much less 'living" (fails point 2).
- They still need reprogramming, reconfiguration, preprocessing, hyperparameter tweaking, can suffer from dataset shift problems, catastrophic forgetting and limited ability to reconfigure themselves. This goes to point 6 in terms of "liveness" as well as sentience.
From a symbolic system perspective:
- Can model higher order structures but is too far removed to even resemble "liveness" for most people's taste
- It is too brittle to be considered adaptable (even with all the bells and whistles of Fuzzy logic, action logic and all the logics out there).
Hybrid systems in my opinion stand a better chance but suffer from both symbolic and connectionist limitations.
In addition, if you make a simple agent environment and make it work to resemble "liveness", it will be evaluated as living in a closed world and not the "real" world. Most criteria out there would also require to fulfill peoples criteria to be "embodied" (whatever that really means ) and interact with the "actual" world.
As a final note, in 1 I pointed out that it is observable property. This property(as far as I know) has not been refined to be exact (fulfilling a logical or mathematical exactness criteria) to fulfill consensus (neither the above points for that matter, but I hope they can be useful to you).
Regards
This is a simple question. And there is a simple answer to it. Although it is difficult for science. But the problem is not in the question and answer, but in the science itself, which does not see the obvious point-blank.
The living is the Soul connected to the body. Death is the separation of the Soul from the body. The dead is a body without a Soul. But the Soul without the body is alive. Life is Spirit.
If the computer has a Soul , it will be alive. But if the soul controls the computer, it will be no more alive than the body of a living person.
Preprint ABOUT THE INTERFACE: "SOUL-COMPUTER» (artificial intelligenc...
http://lc.kubagro.ru/aidos/LC_young-3/LC_young-3.htm#_Toc200963186
Article UNIVERSAL INFORMATION VARIATIONAL LAW OF SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Artificial Intelligence