Originally posted by scottishinnzYes self-assembly of crystals are beautiful, and I love diamonds very much.
Molecules which catalyse their own production. Like, for example, salt crystals.
But their structures are simply repeating, while life-forms are susceptible to changes in their environment.
Originally posted by kyueAnd there are other self replicating molecules which are not crystaline in structure. And that, my friend, provided the basis for differential reproduction and survival in a world with finite resources.
Yes self-assembly of crystals are beautiful, and I love diamonds very much.
But their structures are simply repeating, while life-forms are susceptible to changes in their environment.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell, I suppose they are a lattice of molecules. However, I doubt that calling them a single molecule would be frowned upon too harshly. There is no size constraint anyway - a diamond is a single molecule, and there is one the size of earth at the core of Jupiter.
Salt crystals are not molecules.
EDIT - You're a professional biologist, so maybe you know better than me. Can you call ionic crystals "molecules"?
EDIT - and if it was a salt crystal seeding a supersaturated salt solution it would definitely be causing Na and Cl molecules to bond together....
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't see how you can study conciousness in others, other than perhaps whether or not they claim to have it. But all you can observe in another is their actions. For one to say "I have conciousness" is merely a stream of words that can be synthesized on a computer.
Scientists do study consciousness and I don't see why you cannot verify whether someone else has it.
Do you believe that some animals are conscious?
Do you think it is possible to be semi-conscious?
At what point in the development of a child does consciousness suddenly appear?
I am a computer programmer and I am certain that it will be possible in future to create a conscious computer.
I believe everyone has conciousness, but I am only certain about myself, yet cannot prove it to anyone.
I don't know if it is present at birth, but I clearly recall having conciousness at age 2.
It is very likely that animals have conciousness, but I only make a guess.
As far as a computer that is concious, I respectfully disagree that one will ever be made. Sure, I can write a program that consists of an object class called "Computer" with an instance called "self". That is nothing at all like conciousness. If you believe a concious computer will be made, I am curious as to how you think that will emerge.
I studied Artificial Intelligence in grad school and although I was impressed with how life-like things could be made in some cases, it was always clear that computers were not really becoming like people. In the early days, I can't remember where, someone wired up a lot of relays somewhat haphazardly with lots of feedback in hopes that some basic intelligence would emerge on its own. It didn't pan out too well though and nothing became of it.
Hey, I'm as open minded as the next guy and have learned that just because I can't imagine something being possible, doesn't mean it is impossible. However, all that I am saying is that I believe it is more of a stretch to believe that conciousness could emerge by chance from chemical processes is more of a stretch than it is to believev in God.
1 edit
Originally posted by techsouthBy your reasoning, we shouldn't be able to study the material world either, since we cannot prove that it exists.
I don't see how you can study conciousness in others, other than perhaps whether or not they claim to have it. But all you can observe in another is their actions. For one to say "I have conciousness" is merely a stream of words that can be synthesized on a computer.
I believe everyone has conciousness, but I am only certain about myself, yet cannot p chance from chemical processes is more of a stretch than it is to believev in God.
As for the "computer intelligence" bit, what is the human brain, if not a hugely complex organic computer?
Edit - Oh, and it's a far greater stretch to believe in God than in the evolution of conciousness. After all, we can't even prove that God exists. God is an explanation for nothing - it's only an excuse.
I'll let you get back to thumping your bible now.
Originally posted by techsouthTo say something is "conscious" is like saying something is "alive", in that it requires further definition. What, specifically, is this "cosciousness" that you speak of? A neuroscientist would argue that you believe yourself and others to be conscious because of chemical reactions in your brain. If this is true, then consciousness is a "chemical process", as you put it, and could certainly have emerged from other chemical processes quite easily. If not, then you need to further define your idea of "consciousness".
I don't see how you can study conciousness in others, other than perhaps whether or not they claim to have it. But all you can observe in another is their actions. For one to say "I have conciousness" is merely a stream of words that can be synthesized on a computer.
I believe everyone has conciousness, but I am only certain about myself, yet cannot p ...[text shortened]... chance from chemical processes is more of a stretch than it is to believev in God.
Originally posted by jammerThe point is that both words are meaningless until defined.
Actually, "conscience" would be something that is aware it is alive.
For example,
"life; although there is no universal agreement as to a definition of life, its biological manifestations are generally considered to be organization, metabolism, growth, irritability, adaptation, and reproduction."
From wiki
Something cannot be alive unless it fulfils all the criteria listed above.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI like to think of life as a property. Broadly speaking, any self-replicating pattern in matter has the property of being alive.
And there are other self replicating molecules which are not crystaline in structure. And that, my friend, provided the basis for differential reproduction and survival in a world with finite resources.
So I've always thought of computer viruses as being the first truly man-made life forms.
Edit: of course, one could ask whether a computer program is material. So make that "life-like", perhaps.
Originally posted by spruce112358Normally, life is defined as a combination of properties. A computer virus may struggle on the "metabolism" count, but I could be wrong.....
I like to think of life as a property. Broadly speaking, any self-replicating pattern in matter has the property of being alive.
So I've always thought of computer viruses as being the first truly man-made life forms.
Edit: of course, one could ask whether a computer program is material. So make that "life-like", perhaps.
Originally posted by scottishinnzSee I can go for just the first and last as the key properties: there has to be an organized pattern to the matter or whatever medium you want to talk about -- not unchanging (different molecules swap in and out etc.) but s stable pattern that remains in existence. And that pattern then manages, through one means or another, to throw off a copy of itself.
The point is that both words are meaningless until defined.
For example,
"life; although there is no universal agreement as to a definition of life, its biological manifestations are generally considered to be organization, metabolism, growth, irritability, adaptation, and reproduction."
From wiki
Something cannot be alive unless it fulfils all the criteria listed above.
To me that's really enough to define "alive".
So what about eating and metabolism? Well, if you don't acquire more material, each time you divide, you will get smaller. So you could be alive for awhile, but then finally you would disappear -- die out.
Growth? Yes. Again, to throw off a full-sized copy of a pattern, that new pattern can't be the same size as the old. The new one has to be smaller, and then grow to 'maturity', so it can then throw off a copy itself.
Adaptation -- well...I'm not sure that's technically necessary. We have to define what a "copy" of a previous pattern is. So there has to be some heredity mechanism. Does that heredity mechanism HAVE to have the property of being able to adapt? Maybe the only patterns that survive are those that do -- so a moot point.
I didn't know about irritability! What's that all about?
Originally posted by spruce112358"irritability" is also known as 'response to stimuli'. One thing though, if you don't have all the criteria then you could be including non-alive things in your definition, like chems, for example.
See I can go for just the first and last as the key properties: there has to be an organized pattern to the matter or whatever medium you want to talk about -- not unchanging (different molecules swap in and out etc.) but s stable pattern that remains in existence. And that pattern then manages, through one means or another, to throw off a copy of itsel ...[text shortened]... do -- so a moot point.
I didn't know about irritability! What's that all about?