Flowing Water On Mars

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: BRZED
I mentioned the difference between hypothesis and theory the other day, but someone apparently in favor of making language less concise simply labeled the two words synonymous.

I don't understand how the terms got conflated over the years. This is what, Grade 7 science?
 
You do not know what you do not know. Water being essential for life is based off one single example. Sure there's plenty of diverse life on Earth be it likely all originates from a single example.

AI will not need humans around. We do know that. It's just s matter of how long it'll take the AI to figure this out.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
You do not know what you do not know. Water being essential for life is based off one single example. Sure there's plenty of diverse life on Earth be it likely all originates from a single example.

AI will not need humans around. We do know that. It's just s matter of how long it'll take the AI to figure this out.


So to you, AI is life? Interesting position.

Plants are alive, however they are not "intelligent" as per the classic definition of consciousness as defined in the human realm.

On the one hand we have intelligence, which does not require life to exist. Intelligence has the ability to be possessed by the living or non. The fact that we have not yet created artificial intelligence does not preclude it from being part of that statement as its coming is obvious.

On the other hand we have life, which does not require intelligence to exist. There are many things just within our own little sphere here that do not meet the more classic definitions of intelligence.

So it would seem that these two things can be mutually exclusive so I'm interested in you explaining why you feel that the ability for something to be self aware makes it alive when all the other characteristics of that entity prevent it from being so categorized.
 
I would have thought that life is a self building/self replicating thing, not from a box of parts, either, far opposed to AI
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
You do not know what you do not know. Water being essential for life is based off one single example. Sure there's plenty of diverse life on Earth be it likely all originates from a single example.

Maybe, maybe not. But, if life didn't need water to thrive, it would have dispensed with it, in at least one example. We don't have any.

Originally Posted By: hatt
AI will not need humans around. We do know that. It's just s matter of how long it'll take the AI to figure this out.

AI may not, hypothetically, need humans around. But, AI will need water to thrive. I'm no engineer, but I suspect that in production of metal, plastic, circuit boards, and electricity, a lot of water is used, and it's not just for the workers' coffee. You cut off the water, you cut off all the production. Take away water from self-replicating, intelligent machines, and the first thing they'll want to do is bring it back.

Heck, without water, our weather goes down the toilet, and the chemistry of the earth becomes a lot less interesting, and a lot less useful. And, the theory that life needs water remains unassailable.
 
Quote:
There are many things just within our own little sphere here that do not meet the more classic definitions of intelligence.
By here did you mean this forum? I know what you did there :)
 
Quote:
So to you, AI is life? Interesting position.


AI isn't necessarily life. When it starts replicating everything "life" does, then it will be life.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
Quote:
So to you, AI is life? Interesting position.


AI isn't necessarily life. When it starts replicating everything "life" does, then it will be life.


Even if they are not organic?
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
AI isn't necessarily life. When it starts replicating everything "life" does, then it will be life.

What if it has no intelligence, though? Lots of life has no intelligence. Plants and single celled organisms, for example, exhibit no intelligence whatsoever, yet carry on the biological functions that define life.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: hatt
Quote:
So to you, AI is life? Interesting position.


AI isn't necessarily life. When it starts replicating everything "life" does, then it will be life.


Even if they are not organic?
I don't see why organic should be the defining factor. If it's sustaining itself, reproducing, evolving, learning, etc, that goes a long way.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: hatt
AI isn't necessarily life. When it starts replicating everything "life" does, then it will be life.

What if it has no intelligence, though? Lots of life has no intelligence. Plants and single celled organisms, for example, exhibit no intelligence whatsoever, yet carry on the biological functions that define life.
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.
 
Last edited:
The problem with AI is while its dumb today its evolving leaps and bounds faster than people do.

So it will look kind of like a car passing on the freeway, kind of far away and not to fast, than vroom it blows past us.

This is why some of the leading minds today are so concerned about it. Do mice really comprehend people? Once AI gets past us the difference will be much greater, will we be able to comprehend it?
 
Last edited:
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.


Those already exist, they are called computer viruses. Are they alive now?
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
I don't see why organic should be the defining factor. If it's sustaining itself, reproducing, evolving, learning, etc, that goes a long way.


Because organic is part of the definition of life, hence my earlier post.
 
Quote:
Once AI gets past us the difference will be much greater, will we be able to comprehend it?


There's no way we'll keep up once it's started. Humans can't access all knowledge, use it to simultaneously run millions/billions/trillions of models, and analyze the results creating new models in real time.

*Note, the above post was written by a non computer scientist in one minute and as a result the syntax and terms may not coincide 100% with actual stuff those people would be doing.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
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.


Those already exist, they are called computer viruses. Are they alive now?
You tell me. I do not know enough about computer viruses. They certainly do appear to have some lifelike characteristics.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
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.


Those already exist, they are called computer viruses. Are they alive now?
You tell me. I do not know enough about computer viruses. They certainly do appear to have some lifelike characteristics.


But they are non-organic so they do not fit the definition of "life". My comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
 
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



He believes they should be categorized as such due to characteristics they possess.

Also from the article:

Quote:
Dr Richard Dawkins, professor of evolutionary zoology at Oxford University and author of the The Selfish Gene, said yesterday that although Professor Hawking's claim was interesting, even biological viruses are on the borderline between living and non-living things.

'Although I would agree with Stephen Hawking that computer viruses are approximately as alive as ordinary viruses, that's not very alive.' He said his criteria for identifying a living thing would be that it should have some independence, which both biological and computer viruses lack.


Which sums it up nicely IMHO.
 
Quote:
He said his criteria for identifying a living thing would be that it should have some independence, which both biological and computer viruses lack.
Explain that further. All life we know of are locked into certain environments. Humans can live all over the surface of Earth but they couldn't survive in any alien environment that we know of unless they bring their own Earth like conditions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Shel_B
Oxygen on Mars
Replies
1
Views
371
Jetronic
JeffKeryk
A hole drilled by Curiosity Rover on Mars
Replies
9
Views
523
Eddie
M
NASA beams a video 19 million miles…
Replies
4
Views
311
Warstud
A
Back on the moon, LUNR did it, Stock price up after hours over 40%
Replies
11
Views
603
alarmguy
S
2nd Starship launch planned for Saturday, Nov 18
Replies
19
Views
659
Pablo
Back
Top