Flowing Water On Mars

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Stephen Hawking believes computer viruses are life.

Quote:
'I think computer viruses should count as life,' Professor Hawking told the computer trade show in Boston.




http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/haw...ts-1374137.html


Somebody is watching a lot of sci-fi movies I see...

Regarding the viruses, they could only be considered life in the computer software realm, not in ours. In our realm they need a physical body and if that physical body is not organic and does not carry a genetic code, there is no way for that body to reproduce. The only way it could reproduce is if someone/something actually builds it, which in itself requires intelligence. So you could not have a dumb bot that would be able to reproduce itself because it would not know how to gather, produce and assemble all the materials that are needed for its construction.
 
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: hatt
Stephen Hawking believes computer viruses are life.
Quote:

I think computer viruses should count as life,' Professor Hawking told the computer trade show in Boston.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/haw...ts-1374137.html

Somebody is watching a lot of sci-fi movies I see...

Who? Stephen Hawking?
Quote:
Regarding the viruses, they could only be considered life in the computer software realm, not in ours. In our realm they need a physical body and if that physical body is not organic and does not carry a genetic code, there is no way for that body to reproduce. The only way it could reproduce is if someone/something actually builds it, which in itself requires intelligence. So you could not have a dumb bot that would be able to reproduce itself because it would not know how to gather, produce and assemble all the materials that are needed for its construction.

Insects aren't very smart but they can do all that stuff.
 
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: hatt
Who? Stephen Hawking?


No, you.

Your idea of AI is pretty much taken straight out of Hollywood.
Yet you're debating the cheap Hollywood ideas.
 
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: hatt
Insects aren't very smart but they can do all that stuff.


Are you saying that insects are building themselves? I would like to see an example of that.


You said:
Quote:
So you could not have a dumb bot that would be able to reproduce itself because it would not know how to gather, produce and assemble all the materials that are needed for its construction.
Bees certainly gather raw materials, process the raw materials into necessary materials, and use it to construct a suitable habitat to produce their offspring.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
Quote:
Regarding the viruses, they could only be considered life in the computer software realm, not in ours. In our realm they need a physical body and if that physical body is not organic and does not carry a genetic code, there is no way for that body to reproduce. The only way it could reproduce is if someone/something actually builds it, which in itself requires intelligence. So you could not have a dumb bot that would be able to reproduce itself because it would not know how to gather, produce and assemble all the materials that are needed for its construction.

Insects aren't very smart but they can do all that stuff.

Insects carry a genetic code, they don't need to be "smart". Life doesn't require intelligence, we've already covered this.
 
35.gif
36.gif
 
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
You missed "...that are needed for its construction.", not its nest, not its hive, but itself.

I know that those are the "pesky little details" that don't matter to you, but they are crucial if one wants to have an intelligent discussion about the subject.


For an intelligent discussion we'd have to have people who didn't jump in and confuse Hawking with Hollywood.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
For an intelligent discussion we'd have to have people who didn't jump in and confuse Hawking with Hollywood.


Hawking has been wrong about a number of things and should not be considered the god of physics, but no doubt is an intelligent physicist.

I am at a loss as to how you can support the notion that one can equivocate Artificial Intelligence to Life.

Maybe you could elaborate?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
hatt,

I am at a loss as to how you can support the notion that one can equivocate Artificial Intelligence to Life.

Maybe you could elaborate?
Not sure what in the world you're talking about. I believe one day computers will have enough processing power to begin thinking for themselves. No idea what happens next but it's fun to speculate. Am I still confusing you with all the equivocation?

Quote:
Hawking has been wrong about a number of things and should not be considered the god of physics, but no doubt is an intelligent physicist.
No one said Hawking was the last word on anything. I was simply posting something interesting from a well respected member of the scientific community about a topic that came up.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
hatt,

I am at a loss as to how you can support the notion that one can equivocate Artificial Intelligence to Life.

Maybe you could elaborate?
Not sure what in the world you're talking about. I believe one day computers will have enough processing power to begin thinking for themselves. No idea what happens next but it's fun to speculate. Am I still confusing you?


Okay, maybe I misunderstood your past exchanges with others but that is what you seemed to be advocating.

In the field of AI, machines (computers) have already been programmed to learn, but to think for themselves means a detailed definition of, "to think for themselves."

Quote:
Am I still confusing you?
Knock it off!
grin2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
You watch. Now that there may be water on Mars our politicians will have a whole new planet to save. They'll pass a law banning hydro-cracking there. Details like, we're not there and can't get there will have no effect on their save the planet of Mars legislation. They might ban coal mining, too. And think how effective solar panels will be. They've already fixed our economy, our healthcare and immigration. With nothing else to fix here on our earth, Mars could be a bonanza for new laws and regulations.


+1 the enviromental wacko's are already out of the loony bin and on the bandwagon. We need more cars to get more MPG and less Co2 or we will end up like mars.
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
hatt,

I am at a loss as to how you can support the notion that one can equivocate Artificial Intelligence to Life.

Maybe you could elaborate?
Not sure what in the world you're talking about. I believe one day computers will have enough processing power to begin thinking for themselves. No idea what happens next but it's fun to speculate. Am I still confusing you?


Okay, maybe I misunderstood your past exchanges with others but that is what you seemed to be advocating.

In the field of AI, machines (computers) have already been programmed to learn, but to think for themselves means a detailed definition of, "to think for themselves."

Quote:
Am I still confusing you?
Knock it off!
grin2.gif

I don't have a definition. Probably will be a lot of grey area between a simple code cruncher and something that can actually think. I'd say a test could be whether the computer could autonomously design a superior next generation of itself which would be capable of repeating that test.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
. We need more cars to get more MPG and less Co2 or we will end up like mars.

If more cars get more mpg then people will drive more and there will be more congestion with more cars on the road. More congestion means more CO2. 'Ol law of unintended consequences.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
You answered your own question. Intelligence isn't required. For example. If a simple "bot" was created that was essential dumb but could reproduce, etc I don't see why it wouldn't fit. Maybe a CO2 composted, since CO2 apparently is going to kill us all soon.

I already pointed out, though, that if the definition of life is expanded in a way that it could include something artificial, it's still going to need water to carry on.

And, in respect to the comments about viruses, neither computer viruses nor regular viruses are alive. They cannot reproduce themselves. They require something else to build them.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: hatt
You answered your own question. Intelligence isn't required. For example. If a simple "bot" was created that was essential dumb but could reproduce, etc I don't see why it wouldn't fit. Maybe a CO2 composted, since CO2 apparently is going to kill us all soon.

I already pointed out, though, that if the definition of life is expanded in a way that it could include something artificial, it's still going to need water to carry on.

And, in respect to the comments about viruses, neither computer viruses nor regular viruses are alive. They cannot reproduce themselves. They require something else to build them.
I'm not seeing the water requirement. That's not to say they wouldn't happily find uses for a very plentiful resource on Earth and the solar system. They won't however be tied to our traditional ways. It's impossible to know what they'd do so we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Shel_B
Oxygen on Mars
Replies
1
Views
374
Jetronic
JeffKeryk
A hole drilled by Curiosity Rover on Mars
Replies
9
Views
529
Eddie
M
NASA beams a video 19 million miles…
Replies
4
Views
333
Warstud
A
Back on the moon, LUNR did it, Stock price up after hours over 40%
Replies
11
Views
665
alarmguy
S
2nd Starship launch planned for Saturday, Nov 18
Replies
19
Views
678
Pablo
Back
Top