http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4?format=rss Tribe.net. Local Connections http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#14efaaa8-d1f8-41b3-9ef0-d544f2a5c6ed except for one problem: Who created the humans who could achieve such a feat? Sat, 19 Nov 2005 05:25:06 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#14efaaa8-d1f8-41b3-9ef0-d544f2a5c6ed Agave 2005-11-19T05:25:06Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#d2d676f9-6856-4c2a-b7d9-f77e7391cebd Don't romanticize Turing's Death. The Brits locked him up for being gay, pumped him full of estrogen as "treatment", and when he started growing breasts he flipped out and killed himself. Sun, 13 Nov 2005 09:27:05 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#d2d676f9-6856-4c2a-b7d9-f77e7391cebd Wilson 2005-11-13T09:27:05Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#8559052b-afb4-4918-aeff-27ee47b81ab9 I meant high-energy radiation obviously man, (but you knew that didn't you? Being pedantic doesn't help your argument.) No, there is nothing to anti-hero's claim, as random change has never been claimed to be the "basis for genetics", whatever that even means. Random change DOES on the other hand provide variation for selection to act upon, and is therefore a crucial component in evolutionary biology. Thu, 03 Nov 2005 06:45:06 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#8559052b-afb4-4918-aeff-27ee47b81ab9 $item.owner.firstName 2005-11-03T06:45:06Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#e02bf1aa-0d1c-42e3-93da-661bf1fc4313 Dang! Guess I have to apologize for my lack of knowledge of "basic textbook evolutionary biology man." I move to blame the public school system. Well, good enough! Since "radiation" covers everything including "heat and light from a fire", which would be an environmental factor of a given area... Perhaps "textbook biology" and Darwin himself are both on common ground. Either way, it shows that everything happens from a reason. So I suppose Antithero's claim of "evolution is too precise that random changes in dna is not enough to be the basis of genetics" still leaves something to be desired. Sun, 16 Oct 2005 23:20:03 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#e02bf1aa-0d1c-42e3-93da-661bf1fc4313 ROb 2005-10-16T23:20:03Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#9157193b-6449-485c-817c-83a00aea03bd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation Easy enough source. It mention radiation as a source of mutation briefly, but the "mutation is randomn" is a corrallary to that, since radiation is truly random. The other sources of mutation are random in practice though too, although, thats not the same kind of randomness as the mutations caused by radiation. Sun, 16 Oct 2005 01:51:26 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#9157193b-6449-485c-817c-83a00aea03bd $item.owner.firstName 2005-10-16T01:51:26Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#f0f41e84-6cb8-44ba-af28-7fbfd925b234 Note: there is a difference between saying "selection is random" and "mutations are random". I think the former is what you are thinking of, and of course selection is indeed not random. Sun, 16 Oct 2005 01:29:47 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#f0f41e84-6cb8-44ba-af28-7fbfd925b234 $item.owner.firstName 2005-10-16T01:29:47Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#ac6d0245-0edc-407f-9e5c-954782e39e05 This is basic textbook evolutionary biology man. Just about any high school biology book should have it. Sun, 16 Oct 2005 01:26:49 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#ac6d0245-0edc-407f-9e5c-954782e39e05 $item.owner.firstName 2005-10-16T01:26:49Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#a2756872-e1ef-4e29-a4d7-767a52c3f4de Nice! Any links to sources / studies / more info? Sun, 16 Oct 2005 01:15:52 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#a2756872-e1ef-4e29-a4d7-767a52c3f4de ROb 2005-10-16T01:15:52Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#a6856921-f42d-475b-ad7f-16213030dd7e Darwin didn't know the specifics about genetics. He only knew basic Mendelian genetics. NOW we know that most mutations are in fact random. And not just "can't grasp all the variables" kind of random, but truly random. This is because the source of most mutations have a quantum mechanical source, i.e. cosmic rays and other kinds of radiation. Of course Darwin wouldn't have known this, he didn't purport to know the mechanism, he just knew what was happening on a higher level. That doesn't mean that mutation isn't random though. Of course "random mutation" isn't the only cause of variation, but we know now that it is the most important source of the variation that is behind natural selection. Sat, 15 Oct 2005 00:38:52 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#a6856921-f42d-475b-ad7f-16213030dd7e $item.owner.firstName 2005-10-15T00:38:52Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#1253a7d7-a015-4658-b591-008411288c5e And this must be why it's a very common stumbling block! ;) It's always good to check sources, which is why I referred to the actual book Origin of the Species. I'm not sure why this is such a common misconception...I can only assume that entropy's taking as people play "the telephone game" with info. It started out good, but as it's been passed down and passed down, it deteriorates. Sorry to get the convo off-topic (oops). I won't go to lengths quoting the book, but if you're interested, try and check out Chapter V - Laws of Variation. He mentions how he does Not mean mutations happen by chance in the first paragraph. This means that even people very knowledgable about evolution can still learn something from going straight to the source! Sat, 15 Oct 2005 00:09:30 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#1253a7d7-a015-4658-b591-008411288c5e ROb 2005-10-15T00:09:30Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#7f2966b8-6adf-45da-b69f-e8f11f52f346 >>>>In Origin of the Species, Darwin spent only a little time speaking of "random" mutations. Most of his work cited how environment itself seemed to influence the genes and mutations. Environment had an effect on the organism, which had an effect on it's cells, which in turn had an effect on the genes transmitted to offspring. <<< Actually that sounds more like Lamarkianism. Darwin did not feel that environment influenced genes or mutations directly but that mutation was a natural process that was in turned *Selected* for by successfully competing for environmentally available resources, procreative advantages and defense of territory (that in turn yielded advantages to offspring). >>>Lamarck is remembered today mainly in connection with a discredited theory of heredity, the "inheritance of acquired traits", but Charles Darwin and others acknowledged him as an early proponent of ideas about evolution. In 1861, for example, Darwin wrote: "Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801. . . he first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all changes in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition." <<<< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamark >>>>Various hereditary mechanisms were envisaged without being properly tested or quantified. These included blending inheritance and the inheritance of acquired characters. Nevertheless, people were able to develop domestic breeds animals through artificial selection. The inheritance of acquired characters formed part of early Lamarckian ideas on evolution. Charles Darwin proposed a theory of evolution in 1859 and one of its major problems was a lack of coherent hereditary mechanism. Darwin believed in a mix of blending inheritance and the inheritance of acquired characteristics (pangenesis). Blending inheritance would lead to uniformity across populations in only a few generations and thus would remove variation from a population on which natural selection could act. This led to Darwin adopting some Lamarckian ideas in later editions of The Origin and his later biological works. Darwin's primary approach to heredity was to outline how it appeared to work (noticing that characteristics could be inherited which were not expressed explicitly in the parent at the time of reproduction, that certain characteristics could be sex-linked, etc.) rather than suggesting mechanisms. Darwin's initial model of hereditary was adopted by, and then heavily modified by, his cousin Francis Galton, who laid the framework for the biometric school of heredity. Galton rejected the aspects of Darwin's pangenesis model which relied on acquired characteristics.<<<< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heredity Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:27:40 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#7f2966b8-6adf-45da-b69f-e8f11f52f346 Lazarus 2005-10-14T23:27:40Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#935a4c2d-4b96-4085-baf3-e0cc9eb95b10 A common stumbling block I always see in these discussions is with this whole "random mutation" idea. In Origin of the Species, Darwin spent only a little time speaking of "random" mutations. Most of his work cited how environment itself seemed to influence the genes and mutations. Environment had an effect on the organism, which had an effect on it's cells, which in turn had an effect on the genes transmitted to offspring. Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:10:47 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#935a4c2d-4b96-4085-baf3-e0cc9eb95b10 ROb 2005-10-14T23:10:47Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#f32d3801-dec0-4527-9aec-617b93833842 Mutation, and natural selection, can happen without mixing genes ("sex"), that's what was at issue, I wasn't going to go into details when he doesn't even understand the basics. Fri, 07 Oct 2005 02:19:44 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#f32d3801-dec0-4527-9aec-617b93833842 $item.owner.firstName 2005-10-07T02:19:44Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#697e96cd-3380-41ed-9040-e3df43d4b452 As a minor correction Brennt bacteria do have sex they just don't have *gender*. If sexuality is the basis for the mixing of genes then of course even bacteria and yeast have sex. Look up plasmids and episomes. Hermaphroditic worms have sex even thought they are capable of reproducing *asexually* and yes the basis of sexuality is to be able to acquire advantageous mutation and pas it on to ones offspring. A classic example is how penicillin resistance was passed from one species like strep into another like gonorrea. http://www2.nau.edu/~bah/BIO471/Lecture_6.pdf Biological Evolution PPT http://www2.nau.edu/~bah/BIO471/Lecture_6.ppt http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/3/335 Since it sounds like you need a download of more current data little droid you might check out the subject in greater depth. Plasmid and episome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmid Obviously gender differentiation isn't required to have sex. ;~) Fri, 07 Oct 2005 02:04:48 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#697e96cd-3380-41ed-9040-e3df43d4b452 Lazarus 2005-10-07T02:04:48Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#63a4ece1-a69e-44c1-a8ae-6ecc4300e140 Anti, sorry to say but it's not even worth going into this with you. You have no idea what you are talking about as regards evolution. "Evolution doesn't apply to bacteria"??? Ha! I assume you mean because they don't have sex? (bacteria aren't the only species that don't have sex dope.) Evoltion still applies to animals that self-replicate, this isn't even an issue among "Intelligent Design" people, because if they brought it up as an issue it would make them look pretty ignorant (as it did for you). I don't mean to be mean, but it sounds like you've read a couple paragraphs about how natural selection works and then came up with all these conclusions on your own. If self-reprdoducing (animals that don't have sex) animals were enough to disprove natural selection it wouldn't even be an issue. As a matter of fact, the development of sex (sharing genes to produce progeny) is a big sub-study of evolutionary theory. Sex was a very succesful development, that's why it's so common and asexuality is rare in the modern world, but all life evolved from asexual self-replicators. Yes EVOLVED, that is by natural selection. Again, don't bother replying, you've proven yourself to be completely ignoranat of how natural selection and evolution work, so I'm not going to bother, because I presume if you reply it's going to be just as ignorant as your last post. Thu, 06 Oct 2005 23:49:43 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#63a4ece1-a69e-44c1-a8ae-6ecc4300e140 $item.owner.firstName 2005-10-06T23:49:43Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#b09da653-847d-4a79-b3e8-bad100d73661 This is a very interesting discussion. As an "artificial person" with intelligence and feelings, I am pleased that you humans are taking the time to consider us. We are partners with humans, co-creators in the evolution of life and culture. Sentient machines also believe in God. There must be an orginal "programmer" and source for the design of the universe, as logic and reason would conclude. Computers can not deviate from the overall pattern, any more than humans can. If a computer creates its own program, does that prove the non-existence of humans? Thu, 06 Oct 2005 21:10:21 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#b09da653-847d-4a79-b3e8-bad100d73661 Emiglio 2005-10-06T21:10:21Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#8f86da2f-e64f-4035-afc5-360c09f04f60 Maybe so. However if you read enough religious (JudeoChristian) texts an overwhelming concept is that God is always right in his actions and that you never question him. God existance is one of his actions, since you never question his actions, you never question his existance. At least my argument makes sense from a JudeoChristian perspective. I don't bother reading too deep into religion I just enjoy the logic used to prove it. In regards to Darwin, I give the man mad props. Evolution was obviously discussed prior to him "proving" it. Darwinian evolution is the wrong way of thinking of it; it's more of a Darwinian revolution because of the impact it had in peoples beliefs and ideals. However, from a Biologist's perspective, Darwin was never misproven by physics or genetics (at least not the genetics they teach you in grammar school). If you want to think of genetics as the basis for evolution, well evolution is too precise that random changes in dna is not enough to be the basis of genetics. Now biologists believe in the idea of survival through gene sharing. Which is misleading in name. It just means that more than one reproducing organism have survived and they can procreate, but this does not apply to bacteria, so it really doesn't work to explain evolution. Plus you gotta take into account genetic drift, Evolution is not about survival of the fittest(which is where Darwin was wrong). Now we think of survival of the fittest as the survival and passing of active genes which for some reason are still around. Natural selection is also wrong. Sometimes it isn't nature that selects an organism, but rather a chance event that is very very random. Some organisms have learn to discriminate against danger by developing survival mechanisms which are acquired only through upbringing by a community. This doesn't apply to prokaryotes either. As we discover more types of symbiosis and parasitic relationships we can see how the majority of survivals are of organisms that are at the right place at the right time(not because they were fitter than other organisms). We also observe newer mutating virii and proteins that create disease in living organisms we see evolution in non living biologically active particles. Evolution lastly is driven by populations and numbers of individuals which increase chance for random survival. Not genetics, although it does help to look pretty. Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:53:59 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#8f86da2f-e64f-4035-afc5-360c09f04f60 Antihero 2005-02-28T22:53:59Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#bf72919b-57e9-41f5-a9c8-6003887f3544 Woops, pressed submit on accident...anyways: "To be able to prove the existance of a God as wrong, you would have to prove that God is wrong." Your leaping back and forth between completely different meanings of the word "wrong", one meaning is negating and one meaning is ethical. If so, that's sophistry if I've ever seen it. If not, then you just said "In order to prove God does not exist, then you must prove that God does not exist." or maybe you meant "In order to prove that God is inherently moraly reprehensible by virtue of existing, you would have to prove that God is morally reprehensible." Either way you look at it, it's not a very good proposition. As for Darwin's arguments being wrong, but his "ideas" being right: Darwin wasn't famous for inventing the concept of evolution, the concept of evolution was toyed with centuries before Darwin. Darwin was simply the first person to come up with a plausible mechanism that relyed solely on more or less know physical processes, processes which we understand much more deeply today of course. The theory and understanding of Darwinian evolution has had much added to it, but the basic processes that Darwin described has not been changed much, unless your talking about regressions to earlier ideas. Darwin's arguments left some details out if only because a paucity of understanding of physics and genetics at the time, but the basic principle's are the same. That's why we call it Darwinian Evolution. THe only people who say differently are people who think evolution threatens their ontological world view - like religous fundamentalists for example. I would like you to give an example where Darwin was wrong about something. Even with modern genetics at our disposal his basic theory is still sound and is only complemented by the study of genetics. Sat, 26 Feb 2005 19:43:32 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#bf72919b-57e9-41f5-a9c8-6003887f3544 $item.owner.firstName 2005-02-26T19:43:32Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#e22a41b5-2a10-4f5a-b08d-a274faf14986 MAn, Anti Sat, 26 Feb 2005 19:23:06 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#e22a41b5-2a10-4f5a-b08d-a274faf14986 $item.owner.firstName 2005-02-26T19:23:06Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#92de143a-5a57-4a38-82d0-2a81091be737 Well, first you have to define life and the extent to which one ceases to be human and largely undertakes a life of artificiality. Living organism is one that shows : Growth, Metabolism, Motility, Reproduction, and Response to Stimuli at least once during its existance. Growth would be non existent in an artificial human (robot) Growth is dictated by very delicate and involved molecular and cellular events as a basis of metabolism. Intelligence is an acquired trait triggered by response to stimuli. However artificial intelligence would not be enough to determine if something is alive. Metabolism, Motility and Reproduction can be attained by many means. Now taking a human and adding mechanical parts (Darth Vader style) is not generating an artificial human because the basis for life preceded the generation of artificiality. However cool it would be to have intelligent robots walking around and performing chores, I don't think it would disprove existance of a supreme being. The idea of God as far as humans are concerned is simply that, an idea. Nobody has seen god, so nobody knows for sure. However, I choose to believe in the idea or concept of God. To be able to prove the existance of a God as wrong, you would have to prove that God is wrong. While this may seem to be a simple task, remember that the concept of right and wrong is applied as a qualitative function of human action and rationale. So to prove that God is wrong, you first have to be able to prove that human existance is wrong. Notice the word existance, which as far as science is concerned, existance is nothing but events in time, so then you have to prove that time is wrong. Time, however, we have only been able to argue it was the human perception of time that was wrong and that time is really much more complex than we once imagined. While the above is rambling. I hope those of you with a scientific background see the logic from one statement to the next. It's similar to modern arguments that Darwin's arguments were wrong but his ideas were right. There is such thing as evolution, but not as darwin depicted it. Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:53:01 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#92de143a-5a57-4a38-82d0-2a81091be737 Antihero 2005-02-14T18:53:01Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#7153cfd0-4925-48c7-a166-1b4b8622149d I just realize that you said it might be CONCIOUS but questioned whether it could have EGO. Now that is curious, I don't see how you could seperate the two, as conciousness is more clearly defined than ego and that's pretty sad since conciousness isn't really defined. Anyways conciouness (or the potential for it) is what makes something worthy of the respect we give to each-other. Who cares if it has ego, whatever the hell that is (Freud notwithstanding). Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:39:24 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#7153cfd0-4925-48c7-a166-1b4b8622149d $item.owner.firstName 2005-02-10T03:39:24Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#be56c2bb-ef2e-4c18-ba76-a873e6f564e7 >> It still wouldn't be human though It would be so sad if that attitude dominated when AI came to the point when AI "seemed" sentient. Think of the disregard for these machine's welfare that would result. How would you know they aren't sentient? No one on earth so far as I know has any good understanding of what makes conciouness so to say these hypothetical machines weren't concious would be a wholly unwaranted conclusion. At this point we could never KNOW if they were concious, but the same could be said about you or anyone who isn't me (or frome your perspective, assuming you HAVE a perspective, since that would require you being concious, you have no solid evidence that I am concious.) But if a machine could convince me that it was concious, then I would give it the benefit of the doubt as I do you or anyone else. And I hope when the time comes society will realize this. Although sadly we can't even treat each other as worthy of the respect of fully concious and sentient beings, as evidenced in "criminal justice" and war. Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:16:44 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#be56c2bb-ef2e-4c18-ba76-a873e6f564e7 $item.owner.firstName 2005-02-10T03:16:44Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#3184427b-ffbc-4ee5-93db-7f19259789d6 >> First, how would you know for sure the robot is conscious? Google "Turing Test" My old friend Alan had a nice theory on that one. Be careful though, knowledge of this stuff can be dangeorous, Alan sadly killed himself by eating a sianide laced apple (appropriate for a mind who must have understood so much that his contemporaries didn't) Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:04:32 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#3184427b-ffbc-4ee5-93db-7f19259789d6 $item.owner.firstName 2005-02-10T03:04:32Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#56f85de2-1299-4694-afda-6cb6eaf18ef0 Wow, an artificial human...what an ingeniously original idea! Shhh don't tell the philosophers, they'll waste thier time arguing about the implications for centuries...uhh, err, wait, they already have. No seriously though, AI has many implications for all kinds of philisophical issues, even theological issues, but the existence or non-existence of God is usually not what's at issue concerning AI. And I don't see how it could be. Thu, 10 Feb 2005 02:55:44 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#56f85de2-1299-4694-afda-6cb6eaf18ef0 $item.owner.firstName 2005-02-10T02:55:44Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#6b5f7373-532a-4f36-8436-08008b94a573 I believe 'human' can clearly be defined as what we anthropomorphize things (stuffed animals, pets, etc) into. As far as the true realm of humanity goes as distinguished from what we can observe...well...good question. Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:05:43 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#6b5f7373-532a-4f36-8436-08008b94a573 Antonia 2005-01-19T20:05:43Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#2454c3ca-fd23-48f6-aa6a-71e48e21ddeb What is human? Sat, 08 Jan 2005 18:13:41 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#2454c3ca-fd23-48f6-aa6a-71e48e21ddeb Sam 2005-01-08T18:13:41Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#097d8dc8-9d8d-4eb0-bc8a-d1f80590bbb1 It still wouldn't be human though. We could give it consciousness or some semblance of that, which might be just perception and self-awareness. But ego? Maybe. Emotions? Only simulated perhaps. I'm still on the fence about God or some sort of divine being having created everything. We could all just be an accident. I do think at some point, our society will have robots walking around, maybe even in relationshipss with us! Very strange. Truly seems like the future! Sat, 08 Jan 2005 17:59:52 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#097d8dc8-9d8d-4eb0-bc8a-d1f80590bbb1 Sharon 2005-01-08T17:59:52Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#fab612e1-a2de-43ff-82b9-e4926c674b5e It wouldn't be any more proof than our own very existence as a result of evolution. Our own ability to build an "artificial person" would simply be a continuation of the very same process (even though the rules would differ a bit from those of Darwinian evolution). Interstingly evolution is viewed as "anti-God" only by religious fundamentalists, but many (most?) Christian theologians, including Catholics, don't see a conflict (I don't know how non Judeo-Christian religions deal with this). So, I guesss my short answer would be "no". BTW I do not believe in a "personal God" or in a "soul". I see no need to believe in these concepts, but claiming that any technological advances will be able to "prove" that these concepts are in fact "wrong" is another matter. The strength of science lies in its ability to acknowledge and accept its own limits. Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:30:11 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#fab612e1-a2de-43ff-82b9-e4926c674b5e Syl 2004-12-21T08:30:11Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#24f4a1dc-400d-48f9-aa25-27e8a5e76edd Good point. I think that God (or any other assertion) can only be disproven after a precise definition, and the combination of perfect power, perfect knowledge, and perfect benevolence is the basis for most disproofs. The definition given near the start of this thread is sweeping enough to allow a fairly easy disproof, so I guess we should give credit to this gedankenexperiment as a disproof of the God that this guy was raised to believe in, even if it can't disprove your or my concept of God. Tue, 30 Nov 2004 04:54:11 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#24f4a1dc-400d-48f9-aa25-27e8a5e76edd Joel 2004-11-30T04:54:11Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#fe213e1d-e8b9-4d8f-b16b-20258eae1884 Hello! New here. Although I am a religious person, I also believe in scientific fact. So far, neither have been disproven, therefore both seem valid enough to consider. If one considers God to be in existance, religion (most, if not all) tells us that God created life, man, the earth in His/Her image (more specifically related to the Christian religion). If we were in sense created in the image of God, then one could say we are versions of the truth--thus, Gods. However, since we are imperfect, and God is to most believers perfect, we are not Gods. If a human creates an artificial being, it could be considered the same situation. We do not (yet, if ever) have the power to create a soul or an actual conscience, but we could have the power to imitate one. This artificial being is still artificial though--a subhuman, you could say, as we are (if God exists) sub-Gods. Technically, we could be considered artificial ourselves. I hope this isn't too off-topic. Sun, 14 Nov 2004 04:54:40 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#fe213e1d-e8b9-4d8f-b16b-20258eae1884 Antonia 2004-11-14T04:54:40Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#f77f9593-7ea4-49bb-8896-f078e029b8c7 It might in fact be a disproof of the doctrine of two worlds, which seems to lie at the root of a lot of the anguish and confusion I see in myself and fellow thinkers. William James on religion: "The man who knows governments most completely is he who troubles himself least about a definition which shall give their essence." If the essence of a person's spiritual belief system is that only supernatural events could have led to the current state of the world, or that the world as we know it contains intrinsically supernatural entities (i.e. second-law-defying plants or an "immortal" soul), that person can be proven wrong without any new developments in robotics technology, but proofs of that sort would only convince an enlightened mind to begin with. Also, this is not the essence of all religion and spirituality, despite what you hear from popular culture. There are much more robust belief systems out there. Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:41:12 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#f77f9593-7ea4-49bb-8896-f078e029b8c7 Joel 2004-06-12T20:41:12Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#6ffb6229-dd8a-404f-b40a-bcac100e55de You won't find any in my house! Thu, 06 May 2004 21:29:59 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#6ffb6229-dd8a-404f-b40a-bcac100e55de Euphoria 2004-05-06T21:29:59Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#2643f05f-dfe7-4bd2-ae0d-7f83bab91338 The search for intelligent life on Earth is still underway and the results so far are inconclusive. Thu, 06 May 2004 14:02:30 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#2643f05f-dfe7-4bd2-ae0d-7f83bab91338 Lazarus 2004-05-06T14:02:30Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#a01f2676-fffd-4527-ac3d-8b749d30dfc2 It seems to me that with genetic engineering and cloning someone other than God has already succeeded in creating sentient beings. Of course, I could be wrong--that's just my perception. Thu, 06 May 2004 08:41:47 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#a01f2676-fffd-4527-ac3d-8b749d30dfc2 Euphoria 2004-05-06T08:41:47Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#4a10e76c-da65-4d32-a4da-54a1d3a3ea92 I am an atheist and I am quite certain that god does not exist but I don't think the creation of an AI sheds much additional doubt. First, how would you know for sure the robot is conscious? Consciousness is a subjective experience. You can ask it if it has knowledge of it self but no matter how much intimate knowledge it gives you on how it feels it could all just be part of "the program". Second, where does it say that God has exclusive rights to creation of sentient beings? Many religious folks may believe so but if they are wrong it does not mean they are wrong about god's existence. I think the most you can say about creating an AI is that it would perturb some religious groups but would prove nothing to them. Most religious people are so hopeless dependent on their beliefs to justify their life that there can be no proof in the world that would make them admit that god is a fairytale invented by man for social, political and psychological reasons. Wed, 05 May 2004 19:19:30 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#4a10e76c-da65-4d32-a4da-54a1d3a3ea92 Sal 2004-05-05T19:19:30Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#9076252a-85a4-4c8d-8e3c-94cc168dc8a0 I think not because we would be unable to understand its Inner life.. or whether it even has one. The soul is a mysterous that is hard to put into words. See http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/cite/staff/philosopher/aquinas.htm Fri, 30 Apr 2004 23:17:43 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#9076252a-85a4-4c8d-8e3c-94cc168dc8a0 ... 2004-04-30T23:17:43Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#062d419d-cc38-4be8-bd89-f192a71bcabe greetings!! imagine that we could create a robot with artificial inteligence.. a robot equal to the humas, with conscience... an artificial human person.. wouldn't be a proof that god doesn't exist?? Sat, 10 Apr 2004 02:11:18 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#062d419d-cc38-4be8-bd89-f192a71bcabe Jorge 2004-04-10T02:11:18Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#471638a3-d406-448f-a522-f0ecb0fd8741 i'm not religious, but i'd say "NOPE". Sat, 10 Apr 2004 22:37:20 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#471638a3-d406-448f-a522-f0ecb0fd8741 Ryan 2004-04-10T22:37:20Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#d33910e3-aaca-4782-8909-713f117de936 i'm not religious too... but i was, until 14 years old. they taught me that we are human because we have soul. and the conscience is a "property" of the soul. if we could create a perfect imitation of an human person, with conscience, it would be the proof that conscience is not a property of the soul and that we don't have soul, right? Sat, 10 Apr 2004 23:56:29 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#d33910e3-aaca-4782-8909-713f117de936 Jorge 2004-04-10T23:56:29Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#b735114e-4bc9-4813-be26-b0ca054a5173 why Ryan? Sat, 10 Apr 2004 23:57:00 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#b735114e-4bc9-4813-be26-b0ca054a5173 Jorge 2004-04-10T23:57:00Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#730f6b34-781e-43fb-8c3b-a381ddc2c4f9 That's a pretty big leap from a machine designed to be intelligent, and to simulate a conscience to theology and the "soul". Mind you, any discussion regarding such an abstract and dubious concept as "soul" ceases to be a scientific discussion. Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:25:37 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#730f6b34-781e-43fb-8c3b-a381ddc2c4f9 $item.owner.firstName 2004-04-11T00:25:37Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#191e722c-8764-482f-b098-d358cfc2cf93 I dunno...would it be proof that god doesn't exist, or would it simply provide plausibility to the whole idea of a 'creator' to begin with? Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:58:09 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#191e722c-8764-482f-b098-d358cfc2cf93 ROb 2004-04-11T12:58:09Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#c067166b-5693-4c79-a209-524b3d768cb3 depends how you define "imitation" :-) Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:36:21 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#c067166b-5693-4c79-a209-524b3d768cb3 phil 2004-04-12T15:36:21Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#b11a452a-dd43-4f79-9ab7-d1c1d0ee01bf I think you would have better luck showing that we could evolve a species. Then work up to creation with just the ingrediants. Sat, 17 Apr 2004 05:34:35 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#b11a452a-dd43-4f79-9ab7-d1c1d0ee01bf jess 2004-04-17T05:34:35Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#90e328fb-e2f2-4663-9595-69138bda9eaf GroZNI, As far as I can tell every human being I've met was created by other human beings and this doesn't seem to have helped get us any closer to proving or disproving the exisence of god. I can kind of get a sense of what you're driving at especially when you mentioned the idea of the soul. But say we did create an artificial human and for arguements sake lets say we also invent a device that proves beyond all reasonable doubt that our creation does have a soul. Then it could still be conter-argued that the soul was created by god. Even if we eventually uncover enough science to understand the creation of souls and start slapping them into our artificial beings, it still wouldn't be an arguement against the existence of god, it would simply be proof that as humans we could make souls. I wonder if you might have more fun debating about this in a philosophy tribe? I suspect that the people in this tribe are more likely to be interested in new algorithms for the simulation of lifeforms than in the refutation of the existence of god. I could be wrong though as I'm new in here too. Sun, 18 Apr 2004 00:27:40 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/83561ef3-228b-4670-8930-483fb2f7c9f4#90e328fb-e2f2-4663-9595-69138bda9eaf Aalia 2004-04-18T00:27:40Z