4 ms·

Google result for "characteristics of life" [ Here is the list of characteristics shared by living things: * Cellular organization. * Reproduction. * Metab

Google result for "characteristics of life" [ Here is the list of characteristics shared by living things: * Cellular organization. * Reproduction. * Metabolism. * Homeostasis. * Heredity. * Response to stimuli. * Growth and development. * Adaptation through evolution. ] Out of this, how many bullet points are present day robots hitting? Can we create a robot with vision that seeks a power outlet when the batteries are running out? Can it make (or "print") its own parts? Can it recognize heat/cold and move closer to a ideal environment? Can it just copy its LSTM models into the next generation(s) to give its progeny a head start? Have we, unbeknownst, already created "life"?

Hondor 10y ago
I think we invented that definition to exclude machines. So if we make machines that do all those things, we'll probably just add more requirements to help us tell them apart. We might be more concerned with the distinction between natural life and artificial life rather than between life and non-life.
- UmDieWelt 10y ago
  People were thinking about the difference between life and non-life way before robots. Philosophers/biologists needed to come up with a definition that could get just the right subset of a fire, a rock, a tree, an animal, a human, a virus, etc.
  - taneq 10y ago
    People have always started with "I know it when I see it" and worked backwards to find a set of rules that fit the things they currently knew about. For instance, the requirement for life to be cellular was added when we realised that our previous definition of life didn't exclude fire. Once robots tick all of our current boxes, I'm sure we'll add something like "must use a combination of electrical and chemical signalling" or "must be powered largely or wholly by ATP reactions."
eivarv 10y ago
Life, like intelligence, isn't really well defined or even well understood, though. Besides, isn't your list more aptly described as (some) characteristics of known organic life?

Hondor 10y ago

I think we invented that definition to exclude machines. So if we make machines that do all those things, we'll probably just add more requirements to help us tell them apart. We might be more concerned with the distinction between natural life and artificial life rather than between life and non-life.

UmDieWelt 10y ago
People were thinking about the difference between life and non-life way before robots. Philosophers/biologists needed to come up with a definition that could get just the right subset of a fire, a rock, a tree, an animal, a human, a virus, etc.
- taneq 10y ago
  People have always started with "I know it when I see it" and worked backwards to find a set of rules that fit the things they currently knew about. For instance, the requirement for life to be cellular was added when we realised that our previous definition of life didn't exclude fire. Once robots tick all of our current boxes, I'm sure we'll add something like "must use a combination of electrical and chemical signalling" or "must be powered largely or wholly by ATP reactions."

eivarv 10y ago

Life, like intelligence, isn't really well defined or even well understood, though. Besides, isn't your list more aptly described as (some) characteristics of known organic life?