My friend and i had an arguement last night about weither or not robots can be considered alive. i said when they are self aware and can learn they should be considered alive, but my friend said robots should never be considered alive.

what do you guys think?

I think you should ask your friend, why he considers himself alive, then ask him, if the robot had the same qualities, would he consider it alive?

Robots are not alive.

Androids are not alive.

Anything that isn't sentiant isn't alive.

why no rephrase it?
Are humans any more alive than machines?

It depends how you define being alive, it looks like this definition would be very subjective from how you expressed your opinion.

If you look at it objectively: If a robot or android could mimic the attributes and qualities of sentient life, then why should it not be considered alive? Care to tell me.

Simply, Robots are also called Automatons. They are autonomous, created to do a task and not to live.

however it could be possible to create a sentient robot, one that has not just intelligence but Artificial life, it could perhaps be allowed to "live" although some people would consider it alive.

There is also the possibility that in the future man might blend with machine to the point of having androids (rather than cyborgs), if a human psyche is floating around inside a robotic body then it (that person) should be allowed to continue to exist, shouldn't it?

In my opinion, if it has emotion - it's alive.

I think that machines now adays are not alive. Thats a pretty fair comment. They dont go down the pub and get drunk, do not convey emotions and so on.
However, at a later stage (i.e. in the future) they might get to the stage where they are able to process emotional input like we do (only a matter of time i say).
So i believe that the answer is:
No, but someday (o beautiful day) Yes.

if it can think or itself without being programmed it is alive; "i think therefore i am"quote: some famous guy

One of the prerequisites of life or being alive is the ability to reproduce at some stage in the life cycle. Once a robot is produced that can create a copy of its self, it would be considered ALIVE...
The ability to think,have sentience, be intelligent, emotions and a host of other abstract human qualities have nothing to do with being labeled alive. A virus is about the bottom limit of life and has non of these attributes. Of course there are those that don't consider a virus as a living thing, but I don't subscribe to that school of thought.

Machine now a days are not alive. The ALICE chatbots are not alive, they are not even intelligent.
How can one call something intelligent when it uses pre-programmed data. If it were to obtain all or most of that data alone then it could perhaps be considered intelligent.

If it is intelligent then it is alive. Feelings have nothing to do with it.
This also means that (lets say) 15% of the whole worlds population are not alive. I am talking about those stupid people who sees a training tool ad on the TV, call up the company and order one. Those people are brainwashed by the society and should not be considered intelligent. They merely use "pre-programmed" data.

I bet that i am going to be hated for saying that.

Actually Thats a reason why I decided to repost on this topic.

I realised "Alive" is not having a Storage method that saves your position when you turn off. So theoretically if you were to create a live Robot, it would mean that the sum of all it's knowledge would exist in a constantly Cycling Neural processing grid, which if the energy is dispersed it would no longer know what it previously knew. (It would die).

Current robotic architecture however uses storage methods to make sure that the robot maintains it's functions after it's stopped and started again, and therefore doesn't live (Intelligent or not)

As for self-replication proving life, that isn't correct. Viruses aren't alive, however they can self-replicate by altering normal cell RNA patterns to their own.

I am not sure what you said there Stryder, care to elaborate for me?

Are you saying a robot would have a limited storage ability, and if that storage limit were exceeded, it would die?

No, What I mean is if a robot could store its settings on magnetic tape, or be hardwired to perform a function, it can not die as such, and therefore it doesn't really live.

However if the robot's memory was like RAM where the information only exists while it cycles energy, you could suggest a preportion of the robot lives, as if the system stops and the cycles end, what ever it could have learnt dies with the off button.

(If the robot can be turned back on and it "bootsup" though, it didn't live, because it didn't die. I take death as Absolute, so something to "die" means it must have lived.)

interesting concept

Living things have DNA. It’s like preprogrammed data. Emotions are preprogrammed responses caused by chemical reactions. People seem to have the same bevy of emotional reactions to the same things (aversion to pain, happiness toward acquiring something they wanted) until they learn to control them, and unless they had birth defects affecting the function of their minds. People record data in their minds and based on how their prior experiences affected them react to the world accordingly, like a preprogrammed AI that was programmed to adapt to changes and learn from them. Learning is kind of like programming in progress isn’t it? So if a machine could expand by programming itself, I think it would be alive. People are to some extent preprogrammed by their inherited DNA in the beginning anyway. Also, when people go to sleep, their minds shut down, except for autonomous actions like breathing, and unless they are dreaming. If a machine would have to have a rest period like this, and not forget anything (as I agree with Stryder that “If the robot can be turned back on and it "bootsup" though, it didn't live, because it didn't die”), then that would have to be a factor in my opinion of a living creature.

I wonder about the definition of Life as such. I read "from gaia to selfish genes", which gave me a good thought or two. we have ways to explain life, identify life, but no explanation of what life actually is. This makes me wonder that is it possible, to define life, because all definitions are based on a perseption

And that perception is based on the limitations imposed by our perceivable dimensions. Any definition of Living their for, is also limited according to those rules.

'What is life'? We don't even really understand the question.

Trees are alive- yet they have no more self awareness than a robot.
Fire replicates itself but is not alive; so does a crystal.
Once we have a definition of life then we can think about robots in that context.

----------------------
SF worldbuilding at
www.orionsarm.com

Since our limited human perceptions are all we have to work with for answering any question right now, we have to understand life the way our perceptions allow us. Are stars alive? They do have a life cycle of birth, growth, and death, so do plants and bacteria. Inanimate objects have a life cycle too; they are affected by time, and degrade because of it, but do they have a death? Objects also resist change, kind of like living things, because it takes force to move them, melt or freeze them, or to break them, they resist those physical forces of change to a degree. Not much of a survival instinct in inanimate objects, but who knows. ;) Atoms have a kind of life cycle too they can be created and can decay. A definition of life based on what we have learned by relying on the perceptions of people who have gathered and figured out all this knowledge about life and it’s patterns, is bound to be a very fragmented definition, but with lots of different points of view I'm sure.

No, What I mean is if a robot could store its settings on magnetic tape, or be hardwired to perform a function, it can not die as such, and therefore it doesn't really live.

Absolute, so something to "die" means it must have lived.

To live, you must die? No; to die, you must live. Dying is a result of the function of living, but dying is not the only result of the function, and nor does it have only one value. e.g.

A robot, that cannot die, will die eventually, because it will malfunction one day.

A biological being that has gained immortality, will die eventually, because it cannot survive every potential disaster in it's eternal life time.

A being of pure energy, that cannot die, will live forever and never die. This does not mean there is no function of life.

I believe that machines cant not be consider to be alive, because (1) we are the poeple that made and created these machines, therefore we can limit and program what they can learn and do. Also there is a way that you can shut down a system such as a robot or some type of intelligent machine. Also a machine is created from metal parts and does not grow and evolve on its own, it is totally dependent on us the creators (humans). Humans are created by biological speciemen and have grown and evovled.

I think you should ask your friend, why he considers himself alive, then ask him, if the robot had the same qualities, would he consider it alive?

I don't consider myself to be alive. I'm a deterministic state machine, nothing more.

I don't consider myself to be alive. I'm a deterministic state machine, nothing more.
I do consider myself alive, although I'm a deterministic state machine and nothing more. Perhaps the notion of life follows from the complexity of our "machines", rather than in some other aspect as origin, method of construction, mortality or fabric.

So then you would consider organizations of even higher complexity to be "alive" as well (perhaps more alive, even)? Societies, ecosystems, planets, etc...?

So then you would consider organizations of even higher complexity to be "alive" as well (perhaps more alive, even)? Societies, ecosystems, planets, etc...?
In a sense, yes. Although I do not know if e.g. the organization of a society is of higher complexity than the organization of a human brain. Nonetheless, if you have a system consisting of things we call alive, then perhaps the system itself can be called alive as well.

However, having said that... it brings about rather ridiculous examples: is a bus full of tourists alive?

an>roid.v2---I agree to a point. I f you are created for a purpose you may or not be alive. But the major factor is essence. They say if something s created with an essence its a tool--example---if someone thought about a too to sharpen pencils it has an essence--it was thought about before being made. Although essence cannot be proven or disproven. However if an AI is programmed to take on human characteristics is it human? NO, since the porgramming is only allowed to go so far, humans tell it to make certian choices dependant upon the outcome---I dont think a true AI can ever be built. But, as I think about it, what is a human brain? nothing but a set of bio chemical electrical impulses.

if e.g. the organization of a society is of higher complexity than the organization of a human brain.

Well, the individual nodes in the society each have a brain, hence the complexity of the entire system is certainly greater. The complexity of a system involves both the complexity of the relationships between the various elements (call that organization/structure) as well as the internal complexity of those elements.

The complexity of a system involves both the complexity of the relationships between the various elements (call that organization/structure) as well as the internal complexity of those elements.
Ok.

Thinking longer about the definition of life, and being unable to find a satisfying one, I perhaps should not consider myself alive, nor not alive, but rather I should consider that I do not know.

This is an informative read..
The Definition of life (http://baharna.com/philos/life.htm)

If you wanted to push it further you could suggest a star (the sun in our solar system) generates enormous amounts of energy. We theorise the sun to be burning gases and Fission/Fusion reaction, However no matter how inert and in-intelligent it's form without it in our solar system (And other stars in the universe) their would be no life at all.

You could even look to potentially belief systems in the way they suggest that their existance is at one with the rest of the universe, making everything that you see around you "alive" [For a computer this means no matter how idiotically stupid the OS is]

It also draws on the point of why I previously mentioned "death", I class Death as an absolute it's a Zero to what a One is just like how a light switch has two positions "One" where it's on, and the other (Zero) when its off. Death is something that can't be re-switched back to a "One", however if your energy exists within the confines of the universe then you could say you've gone back to where you came form (Which would equal a rebirth in a way).

The only reason I didn't cover this angle before is because a discussion on "Whether a robot can be termed alive" doesn't usually mean breaking into complete Philosophies and metaphysics on how we coexist with the rest of the universe.

If you consider a continuous spectrum from single elements and chemical compounds to more complex systems, it's very difficult to define the point where the entity can be described as 'alive'.

I think that the concept of 'alive' is human-created, so we shouldn't even expect to be able to apply it neatly to creations of Man and Nature.

I agree with Porfiry and Mouse in that we're just "deterministic state machines". We - and every other object that populates the universe - are all products of blind physical laws. If you were to assign the boundary of life to any point of complexity between an inert element and a person, it would be entirely arbitrary.

We are machines or we do not exist - but it's only relative right? I personally think, the situation Speilberg depicted in AI, of human prejudice against robots, is a likely event to happen. Considering we don't destroy ourselves, before we invent such AI.

hmmm... :rolleyes: that's a good question, well I think it depends how you define being alive. Robots can be considered alive they can be fully functional, and perform various tasks. However, some think that the first thing in being alive is having the ability to realize that it is alive. Therefore, robots must be self-conscious in order to know that. But we don't even know the real definition of consciousness yet, how can we say if something is conscious?

Cogito Ergo Sum

On every bulletin board there are always two deterministic state machines. Never less, never more.

Porfiry: I don't consider myself to be alive. I'm a deterministic state machine, nothing more.
mouse: I do consider myself alive, although I'm a deterministic state machine and nothing more

With increasing degrees of biological complexity the criteria for being "alive" gradually rises from easily machine reproducible to the yet inconceivable.

Prions and viruses have some but not all the characteristics of being alive.

Bacteria and individual cells are clearly alive, but are practically deterministic in that environment has almost total control over them. However, even at this level, bacteria and cells have by chance the abilty to mutate, and to kill their host environment.

Some single celled 'animals' have the ability to locomote, and to visibly react to light or chemical stimuli.

. . . [skipping]

Those handsome sea slugs possess neurons that help them 'reflexively' react to being poked in the tail.

Fish and insects appear to be 'aware' of predators and prey and have complex social behavior.

Octopuses, some birds (especially parrots), and many mammals have 'intelligent' approaches to solving novel problems, are trainable, have consciousness and self-determination. Even differences in 'morals' between and within species are noticeable. The young are raised by the parents, and rudimentary 'culture' is passed on from parent to the young.

Self-consciousness is possibly reserved to the great apes (including humans).

We are unique in having language, written, permanent culture, complex tools and technology, etc.
____________________________

Will robots be alive in the future?

Absolutely. The only doubt in my mind is the level of achievement of future robots. I can even envision robot colonies on the moon, or elsewhere, that far surpass human capabilities and intelligence, hopefully with improved morality.

Only the longevity of humanity is in question. Will we survive long enough to build these 'helpers', and will they outlive humanity into the distant future.

:m:

All humans are are organic computers. What makes a non-organic one not alive? I wouldn't say computers or robots at present time are alive but some time in the future once they're able to do more things and have better AI, they will be. And I don't mean talk and interact with us as if we're humans. Having a simple microchip that sends signals back and forth to one another is communication even if no public sounds are heard.

A cloned being is technically alive. Machines as they are now can create things. If ever a robot is programmed to create another in a factory, how is that any different than by using DNA? One is just organic and the other is mechanical and they're each creating a new version of one's self, so does that not make one alive due to reproduction?

Robots are basically the way of the future once they get a bit more perfected. Information will be able to be stored just like is done with our brains, they can be mass-produced much easier than an organic birth, they can repair themselves as well. So basically it's immortality. Heh, they just better hope nobody is equipped with an electromagnet pulse bomb as that would be akin to a nuclear bomb for us. :p

The only scary question in regards to a robot being alive or not and them being a mechanical computer compared to us being an organic computer.. if we're both considered alive and as we're able to actually know the life story, creation of, and everything else about robots, and they're alive as we are, just a different style, what does that say about our history of creation? If we know a robot has no soul because we created them, but they're just like us, what if we have no soul? If we're just an organic version of being alive, what if someone else, other than God, created us as we created robots? Our creator just prefered the organic version while we prefered the mechanical version. Take everything we know about robots, their history and the like, and apply it to us to help better understand where we came from. Pretty creepy.

- N

I believe that machines cant not be consider to be alive, because (1) we are the poeple that made and created these machines, therefore we can limit and program what they can learn and do.

And our Creator couldn't do the same thing to us? So we're not alive then, I guess.


Also there is a way that you can shut down a system such as a robot or some type of intelligent machine.

And we can't be shut down? Here, lemme whack you up'side the head with a baseball bat a few times. ;)

Also a machine is created from metal parts and does not grow and evolve on its own, it is totally dependent on us the creators (humans).

How were we created? What were we created from? ;)

As for a computer not being able to evolve on it's own, I'm sure it will one day once AI is better. And when that's the case, they won't be dependant on us. Since we have all our information stored on computers and the like, a robot could download all that information to make it so they no longer need us. If they need a certain battery to help them live, they can find out where to get one, how to create it and such. Basically everything WE know, THEY would be able to find out since we'll be using computers and storing information on them for a long time. Not to mention have them all networked.

Humans are created by biological speciemen and have grown and evovled.

Being biological and artificial is no different. When it all comes down to it, all we are is an organic computer in an organic body frame. With a robot having a computer for it's thought processes and metal body frame, it's no different. So what really makes one thing living? One can say a soul but we have NO idea if we have souls or not so that doesn't apply. Reproduce? Machines build everything already as it is. Once robots are here, I'm sure they'll be able to create themselves as well.

And evolution isn't really important if you're an immortal robot. Evolution is there to adapt to changes to survive. If one needn't worry about that, there is no need for evolution. I'm sure if Adam and Eve stayed in the Garden of Eden their whole life without worry, they wouldn't need to adapt and evolve to danger either. Does that make them any less alive? Nope.

- N

Stryder: are you saying that "alive" is a value judgement on whether a thing is unique and fragile?

It's an interesting definition: a thing is alive only if it is possible to destroy it in a way irreversible to human means, so that it is forever gone.

So a copy of "Dark Side of the Moon" is not alive,

but if the entire collection of information that relates to "Dark Side of the Moon" is alive by this definition. If all copies of the recording were destroyed, and everyone who ever knew about the album were somehow made to forget about it, then the album would have "died", and was therefore previously alive.

I don't think that this is a complete description of being alive, but it's an interesting idea nonetheless.

If the robot can self replicate i.e. produce cells that divide by mitosis I will consider it to be alive. Well actually I will consider it a clone of living tissue cos it wouldnt be a robot at all.

So, if I make a lego robot and build another lego robot using the first one, the first one will be alive?

If the robot can produce offspring which in turn can produce offspring which will develop to uniform height and stature (of its parent) and so on without intervention until the end of time or as is possible given 'normal' environmental conditions AND it has the attributes defined at the front of the thread i.e. it can respond in an emotional way then yep - i guess thats alive

Do humans do that? I'm not sure about that uniform height and stature thing; most living things tend to change over time, quite drastically if the time frame is long enough.

I was just guarding against the robot which makes a smaller robot out of its own parts which in turn makes a smaller robot out of its own parts etc etc.

But having said that .. its a pretty cool idea huh! :D

Plants don't have emotions, and yet they're alive :P unless something can really "grow" and react to things without being told to, then it's alive

Plants don't have emotions

I could contest that BUT to do so would be a little silly as I only have personal evidence that the above statement isnt true ;)

Peace

c20

I think a better question would be "Can robots be considered self-conscious?" and the answer would be no, in my opinion.
There are too many different definitions of life, and even more interpretations for them. To answer the question, the definition of being alive must be stated clearly.
:)

Isn't the definition of a living organism is that not only is it 'sentient' or aware, but that it wishes to preserves itself and its offspring?

BigBlueHead,
If you want to get technical you add the specification that it has to have intelligence, I don't think I left that out, I think I took that was being defined within such a machine to begin with.

This means a mear recording of an event or soundtrack/album doesn't warrant being called "alive" and therefore can not be called "dead".

So I'm suggesting:
A system has to have an "non-Backed up" altering perception of the universe around it, which in turn means the machine has to be intelligent (it can make decisions based on what it knows and sees).

If the machine in question is turned off or destroyed "Dies" it's perception of the universe and intelligence is therefore lost it in essence no longer exists as a "being" and it's string of perceptions and interactions will never reoccur if it could be turned back on or re-assembled.

Some people do add that self-replication is preportionary to life, afterall if something can replicate then it's overall outcome is extinction and therefore "death".

In the instance of a robot, it could replicate how it was made, and breath the first breath of "life" into the replication by giving it the very same algorythms the system grew up from, however from that point the replicated system would have to view things with it's own perception and even take some things communicated from the parent system and work out it's own form of reasoning.

however from that point the replicated system would have to view things with it's own perception and even take some things communicated from the parent system and work out it's own form of reasoning.

Own form of reasoning and perception? Where do colony-type creatures that work in unison fit in such as ants and bees fall under? They're pretty much like robot drones yet are "alive". It's funny how many rules will be broken or bent to fit something in yet exclude another (in general).

- N

Where do colony-type creatures that work in unison fit in such as ants and bees fall under? They're pretty much like robot drones yet are "alive".

Colonies of robots could well be alive in every known sense, and even have capabilities we don't have, kind of like the Borg but less vulnerable, without any one robot being alive. The collective takes on its own identity.

Neildo,
Ants however do have commands given to them before they are turned into what ever they do within a colony, before they are grown they are maintained by the colony to grow into particular area's of the colony (soldier ant, drone, flying ant, queen etc)

It's only those instructions that alter them to be any of them.

Also the more simplistic the life form, the more simplistic it's view of the universe. For instance we are a complex organism that derives many complex understandings and feelings with our interaction with the universe.

The less and less complex an organism is, the less understanding it takes from the universe and the more primitive essence of need exists like feeding and breeding.

Do you think an ant looks to the stars and discusses the universe out there? An ant is more than likely not to be concerned, as what senses he has will be actively looking for what they sense like the scent trail of another ant. So the ant won't concern himself with anything outside of what it's life is.

(I suppose you could say greater complexity of intelligence is what has come of us from desensitisation of our senses[smell and hearing].)

Anything that isn't sentiant isn't alive.

So plants aren't alive? Bacteria isn't alive? Cats and dogs and zebras ect ect aren't alive? According to you then perhaps only humans are alive?

This is a theme in many works by Philip Dick, notably "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", made into the movie Blade Runner. The question is what quality makes us living, and other things not? I tend to think as robots get more sophisticated, they will more and more resemble a living thing. I don't see anything so special about us, as DNA-based machines, that cannot be duplicated in a robot.

It probably has to do with level of complexity. Perhaps there is a threshold point at which a complex system undergoes a sort of phase change, and becomes capable of intelligent thought. Scientists are now realizing that many animals are more capable of complex thought than we once assumed.

Ants however do have commands given to them before they are turned into what ever they do within a colony, before they are grown they are maintained by the colony to grow into particular area's of the colony (soldier ant, drone, flying ant, queen etc)

How is that any different than programming the AI of a robot or the action of "learning" that humans go through? Everything you've said agrees with robots being considered "alive" such as the simple-minded views they may have. Unless that's your point??

- N

Once the day where transistors become behaviorally indistinguishable from neurons arrives, then robots will be considered alive.

See Q6 (http://www.mageo.com/home/GEORGE_71/index.html?g71p=qa.html#q6).

Consider this. Maybe the way that we are alive isnt the only way to be alive but just the only way we know or understand how to be alive. for all we know all the programing and everything else we are doing is giving life to robots just not the way we percieve being alive to be. (Food 4 thought)
-gw-

Yes, greywolf, that is an interesting thought, evolution has probably reached a natural limit, life can't survive in space, but robots can. People are already using some principles of evolution to design better programs and machines. Perhaps they will be the species that colonizes space.

Oh gods. Imagine a Chobits-type scenario actually becoming reality.

Chii~~~.

I mean *barf*.

the problem is - what the definition of alive?
I think, that "Everything that can die" is alive, now what is the definitnion of death?
still, I dont really think robots can die, so they're not alive.

I had an indepth debate about this once with one of my friends.... I'll try to tag it on

let me know what you think

from Stryder I get that to live is to be able to die with complete destruction of data. But what if humans "sometime someday" gain immortality in a machine with hard storage? Sure, they'll be dead when the power is down, but living again, when power is turned on again.

we are all made of the same thing... carbon

the word "alive" and the classifications we as put things in were all made by humans

in our definition, anything made of the same stuff we are is alive

a rock, a tree, a cat... its all the same

Well a rock isnt considered alive.

with all this questioning as if a machine can be alive, I had to think, arn't we all machines? isn't a muscle a motor and bone a support? isn't the brain a kind of supercomputer (even though we're far from figuring out exactly how it works)? arn't we just self-supplying machines that are part of yet another machine, the planet?! just add sunlight, a little cosmic dust here and here and, holy crud! after a few billion years, mechanized bi-peds possesing supercomputers are existing! In my opinion, the only difference between our "machines" (or bodies) and the machines we currently make is that our bodies are obviously capable of possesing our consciousness, and our machines are not. Why? Think about it, we can do almost anything we want, think anything we can, all within our body's physical limits and mental experiences. Our most complex machines, robots, can't. They are so much without freedom that they're not even slaves (like the matrix or whatever), they're just tools. They do exactly what we tell them whether it's a good idea or not. The do not explore, forage, or do anything ON THEIR OWN ACCORD. Animals do; a cat will explore a neighborhood, a rodent will hunt down garbage, they'll do all that on their own thought, what little they have. Our robots that make cars, do not do so on their own accord, they do it according to some guy sitting at a terminal telling them exactly what to do.
But could we ever make a machine that's "alive"? After all, that's what we are! This won't happen untill we can make a computer system that is capable of THINKING ON ITS OWN. This would mean this system would have to take in outside information, run it through a processor, and act on it with absolutely no internal human intervention. We couldn't do what we do now when a computer doesn't work right: go in manually and fix a line of code or replace a circuit board. And also, this processor would have to be able to program itself, what we humans call learning. Of course, we don't learn or anything if we don't breath, have a heartbeat, regulate body temperature, or eat starting at the time of our birth. We obviously have some pre-programmed information to keep us going long enough for us to learn about the world and survive in it. A robot that is "alive" would have to have some of this kind of pre-programming to kick-start it's "life". And because this robot would communicate to humans through input and output, it would be unlikely that we could easily control this complex processor that's designed to simply control itself, so in otherwords, we would have to treat this robot as a seperate entity, or another person. This would mean that we humans would be treating it like a learning human, and hey, it'd sure as hell seem alive, right? Just another machine that can think for itself! I think that's when a robot could be considered alive.