PBS Discussions

NOVA scienceNOW1 · Moderator Joined: 13 Jan 2005 Posts: 64

NOVA scienceNOW has launched a new series of Web dispatches called "What We're Thinking About." The first three installments are conversations between Robert Krulwich, host and executive editor of NOVA scienceNOW, and Jonah Lehrer, contributing editor and recent Rhodes Scholar. What they're thinking about is a worldwide competition of scientists to create artificial life. What's your opinion on the quest for artificial life? Jonah Lehrer will be checking this board regularly to respond to your thoughts and questions.

Yaama · Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 9

The quest for so-called 'artificial life' would unwittingly prove that Consciousness and Intelligence ARE necessary to bring about life, that life could NOT be the random interplay of the few laws of physics and chemistry known to science along with the 90 or so elements. Wink

In other words, with your 'artificial life' you would NOT be giving evidence for the purported interplay of the lonely elements of early Earth, as some evolutionary theorists mistakenly believe.
Instead you are demonstrating what Consciousness and Intelligence had achieved in creating life Rolling Eyes

_________________
Consciousness is the Fundamental reality

biglenlen · Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 3

I really doubt scientists will ever "create life" life is not the chemical elements that we consist of. Life is all that is not tangible like thinking and emotions, and appreciating the beauty or complexity of it.
_________________
It is better to die on your feet, than to live on your knees.
-Emiliano Zapata

JonahLehrer · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 2

Dear Yaama,

Thank for your comments. I think you have touched upon a very profound issue relating to this research. In fact, I think most scientists would agree with you provided you made one very big concession. Consciousness and intelligence are absolutely necessary to create life - in a short time span. Don't forget that early earth had incomprehensible amounts of time with which to play with different molecular combinations. In the science labs discussed here, they are trying to create life within the time cycle of research grants. Under such time constraints, human intelligence can work like a fastforward button, speeding up the conditions under which live evolved. But I think most scientists see their own intelligence as merely a shortcut through the ages. They assume - and it is merely an assumption, for the question is ultimately untestable - that given enough time, life could have come about from nothing but scraps of inorganic compounds. As Francis Bacon once said, "the truth is the daughter of time."

Jonah Lehrer
Contributing Editor, NOVA scienceNOW

JonahLehrer · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 2

Dear Big Len,

Thank you for your comments. What you say reminds me of Henri Bergson, a philosopher from the early 20th century. He argued that life was not merely its chemical contents. In fact, what made life living was precisely that it transcended its material substrate. What we call dead stuff, Bergon said, is merely that which is only its molecules.

I think this research will help us understand what it is exactly about the chemical contents of life that turns it alive. But I think you are right about one thing: whatever these scientists find will no doubt be an emergent property. In other words, we will not be able to explain the essence of life from the bottom up. There is nothing about the structure of amino acid that makes it an essential ingredient of life. It is only when the amino acid comes together with a complex of other ingredients that it suddenly turns itself on. Of course, thinking and feeling then become an emergent properties of an emergent property.

Jonah Lehrer
Contributing Editor, NOVA scienceNOW

Yaama · Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 9

Hi, Jonah
The 'question' may not be 'testable', but principles are always testable. Wink

Now, I find it kinda amusing that we would ignore the logical next step, which is to extrapolate a successful principle to the earlier Earth.
Instead we are trying to give credence to a non-principle that does not stand a snow ball's chance in hell of ever working.

Consciousness and intelligence, in the form of humans/scientists, are having success in assembling the bodies of life forms as your piece claims.
Logics in the pursuit of valid knowledge dictates that we extrapolate the principle of this present success to the early Earth.

Instead some are hell bent on regressing to the past your "life could have come about from nothing but scraps of inorganic compounds" for which there is absolutely no precedence!

Jonah, time by itself has no power to make things happen, no matter how much of time existed so far in early Earth.
The quantity of time just does not count without a valid principle at work, which brings me to the flaw in you 'fastforward' analogy!

First of all, inherent in 'fastforward' and 'normal' speeds is the fact of the SAME definite structure/direction to the motion.
All fastforward does is to add motion; the all-important direction is already structured for both speeds.

Now, consciousness and intelligence in the form of scientists do exhibit definite structure/direction to their actions as they seek to successfully assemble the BODIES (only) of life forms.

So their action is definitely NOT a 'fastforwarding' of what could have gone on early Earth according to the 'assumption' of "life could have come about from nothing but scraps of inorganic compounds"? There was no structure to fastforward according to that assumption!

BTW, it would be good if we do not restrict our thinking of consciousness and intelligence as realities that could only have come about with the advent of man. Wink

_________________
Consciousness is the Fundamental reality

zuzu_ · Joined: 27 Jul 2005 Posts: 62 Location: Darknet

abulafia · Joined: 27 Jul 2005 Posts: 1

Hal 5000 · Joined: 27 Jul 2005 Posts: 7 Location: So Calif

I am writing to alert you to the recently issued U.S. patent
concerning ethical artificial intelligence entitled:
Inductive Inference Affective Language Analyzer
Simulating Artificial Intelligence (patent No. 6,587,846).
As implied in its title, this innovation is the 1st affect-
ive language analyzer incorporating ethical/motivational
terms, serving in the role of interactive computer
interface. It enables a computer to reason and speak in an
ethical fashion, serving in roles specifying sound human
judgement: such as public relations or security functions.
This innovation is formally based on a multi-level
hierarchy of the traditional groupings of virtues, values,
and ideals, collectively
arranged as subsets within a hierarchy of metaperspectives
- as partially depicted below.

Glory--Prudence ......... Honor--Justice
Providence--Faith ......... Liberty--Hope
Grace--Beauty ......... Free-will--Truth
Tranquility--Ecstasy ......... Equality--Bliss

Dignity--Temperance ......... Integrity--Fortitude
Civility--Charity ......... Austerity--Decency
Magnanim.--Goodness .... Equanimity--Wisdom
Love--Joy ................. Peace--Harmony

The systematic organization underlying this ethical
hierarchy allows for extreme efficiency in programming,
eliminating much of the associated redundancy, providing
a precise determination of motivational parameters at
issue during a given verbal interchange.
This AI platform is organized as a tandem-nested expert
system, composed of a primary affective-language analyzer
overseen by a master control-unit (that coordinates the
verbal interactions over real time). Through an elaborate
matching procedure, the precise motivational parameters
are accurately determined (defined as the passive-monitoring
mode). This basic determination, in turn, serves as the
basis for a response repertoire tailored to the computer
(the true AI simulation mode). This innovation is completely
novel in its ability to simulate emotionally charged language:
an achievement that has previously eluded AI researchers due
to the lack of an adequate model of motivation in general.
As such, it represents a pure language simulation, effectively
bypassing many of the limitations plaguing current robotic
research. Affiliated potential applications extend to the
roles of switchboard/receptionist and personal
assistant/companion (in a time-share mode).
Although only a cursory outline of applications is possible for
this (90 page) patent, a more detailed treatment is posted at:
www.ethicalvalues.com
The direct US Patent link is found at:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6587846
Sincerely
John E. LaMuth - M. S.

fax: 586-314-5960
P.O. Box 105
Lucerne Valley, CA 92356

http://www.ethicalvalues.com

*******************

Yaama · Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 9

abulafia wrote:

besides, the time scale difference that jonah has already pointed out, i think there may be a confusion here between "necessity" and "sufficiency".

If you are suggesting that an extended length of time by itself, no matter how long, is not 'sufficient' or 'necessary' to bring about life, then we agree. Wink

_________________
Consciousness is the Fundamental reality

mdub · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 4

I know you guys are looking at the exact process at when life begins to exist, but what about the basic material needed to create these molecules. I know about the Miller–Urey experiment in the 1950’s but most people say that’s a bit limited and outdated. What recent studies have looked the formation of basic life ingredents.

Yaama · Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 9

Quote:

I know you guys are looking at the exact process at when life begins to exist, but what about the basic material needed to create these molecules.

You mean the 'basic materials' such as the naturally occurring elements found on planet Earth? Razz

To expect that the naturally occurring elements could self-aggregate into life forms by means of the forces known to physics and chemistry is similar to the medieval mentality that believes that worms fell from the sky when it rained. Smile

_________________
Consciousness is the Fundamental reality

mdub · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 4

Intelligent design is horribly based off of heuristics and has absolutely no empirical evidence to support it. Case closed. An intelligent hand is not needed for abiogenesis, or evolution.

Miller-Urey proved in 1952 that with the predicted basic molcueles in the early atmosphere(water, carbon-dioxide, ammonia and hydrogen) and an energy source, complex molecules can form spontaneously. Including 13 of the 21 amino acids needed for life.

My question what new findings in this area was have been made since the 50’s

jeff.ballard · Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 54 Location: Dallas, TX

jeff.ballard · Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 54 Location: Dallas, TX

Yaama · Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 9

Yaama · Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 9

mdub · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 4

jeff.ballard,

although the they believe it was a short period between water and life, we are still talking abut a time period of millions of years. Relatively short in the history of earth but still plenty of time for abiogenesis. It is absolutely not a waste of money and this will probably have other uses such as curing diseases and creating vaccines. Science is never a waste of money and any new understanding of the natural world is a good thing. There are many worse things that taxpayer money is spent

Although there are problems with the RNA model as is that does not mean abiogenesis did not occur, there is plenty other parts of the puzzle that have a clear working model, and while the specifics of abiogenesis is still uncertain it does not mean that the whole picture is not unsolvable. What they did show is that the DNA chemicals in the right order with autmaticaly assmble on its own due to chemical properties, the question is what is the original proccess that put them in order. Complicated? probobly. Beyond the abilty of modern science to answer? Absolutly not.

-------------------------------------

Yammy,

No intelligence was not behind the forming of complex organic material in that experiment. They put the basic chemicals in a container applied current and left it alone for a week and came back at it was formed.
In fact most of the complex molecules needed for life are littered abundantly in space in objects like comets naturaly.

This is caused by rules of physics and chemistry. Not by intelligence.

For example a snowflake has a perfectly geometric shape that cannot be considered random.

It's shape is born from the mathematical results originating from the number of electrons in atoms. Whether or not there is an intelligent creator, such a non-random shape is able to form entirely on its own. There is room for a naturalistic explanation of complex forms.

Yaama · Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 9

mdub · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 4

extrapolating is not how science works what your talking about purely heuristical reasoning, Which is either accurate or based on empirical data.

If you had to "extrapolate" what killed more people sharks or falling airplane parts. most people would say sharks, but emperical evidence shows that 13 times more people die from falling airplaine parts. Your gut feeling and bad inferences isnt good enouph for science.

What science requires is: observation, a working model testability replication and prediction. Intelligent design has none of those and is not science.

The miller test was not a creation by the scientist; It was a SIMULATION of early earth conditions. He did not have the intention of creating these molecules. They occurred because the conditions present. That’s not guided intelligence that basic chemistry.

In a lab it is at what they call a controlled study. Which means they try to eliminate other factors to find what spacifc varables and fators are imprtant. They are observing the natural phenomena that are always at work.

The idea intelligence can only create intelligence is entirely baseless and does not stand up to scrutiny of the scientific method. Its an assumption that is not based on anything.

Complex form is Like DNA is a factor of chance not design given the right condition and order it will form by itself. This has been demonstrated. Having the right order is a mater a chance. And for that they need alot of time. Millions of years.

“And you don't know how it came to be that your "complex molecules needed for life are littered abundantly in space in objects like comets"? Do you?
You can't just imagine them occurring 'naturally'.”

Yes its purely based off of chemical properties as demonstrated in miller experiment, given the right conditions these complex molecules will naturally occur.

So here’s what you have,

1. All the ingredients needed for life lying around.
2. A set of basic chemical and physical rules that allow for thegradual formation of complex molecules.
3. a lot of time

There no part in there that needs a intelligent hand to guide this. it’s purely the known laws of the universe. No special magic unknown to science.

Yaama · Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 9

Katulus · Joined: 06 Nov 2005 Posts: 14 Location: Slovenia

I think science is able to do a lot of things (already) with life forms. Artificial life is close to be done too. But much more interesting would be improving living and prolonging it ..
_________________
Want to have unlimited power? Have no limit at learning and u'll have it.

Yaama · Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 9

jeff.ballard · Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 54 Location: Dallas, TX

mudb said:
The miller test was not a creation by the scientist; It was a SIMULATION of early earth conditions. He did not have the intention of creating these molecules. They occurred because the conditions present. That’s not guided intelligence that basic chemistry.

That is very wrong it was a fabrication by scientist. No scientist today thinks there was any place on early earth like Miller cooked up for any length of time. Miller admits to trying the experiment several times with likely atmospheres of early earth and got nothing. He then decided what he wanted to get and started with chemicals that would give him the results he wanted. Reducing chemicals are great to start with, but would not stick around with oxygen, SO2, S, water, or even CO2. A little Hydrogen does come from volcanoes but the gravity of earth will not hold it here for long. Water vapor under UV light breaks down giving O2, and UV light breaks down organic chemicals. Where are large sources of ammonia, methane, and Hydrogen coming from back then? Oxygen is just to plentiful on the planet. The latest is, it all came from outer space. How did it survive and how was it made easily in outer space are big mysteries.

mudb said:
So here’s what you have,

1. All the ingredients needed for life lying around.
2. A set of basic chemical and physical rules that allow for thegradual formation of complex molecules.
3. a lot of time

There no part in there that needs a intelligent hand to guide this. it’s purely the known laws of the universe. No special magic unknown to science.

1. We have C, S, O, H, N, P the elements yes, God made them. The first simple compounds needed, can be made naturally for the most part, they do not like to stay that way and have no reason to come together, but thing do happen. Life chemistry, on the other hand, is made of very large chemical structures in precise arrangements requiring extensive control by enzymes and proteins. The odds of one protein coming together from a pool of the precursor chemicals is estimated at 1 in 10 to the 75,000 which is really 0 change. The proteins are needed to make DNA and DNA is needed to make protein. We have yet to make our own life, with proteins and DNA, so we do not know what all is needed. The latest is to say this is very improbable and to go to some exotic unknown none DNA and protein form of life.
2. Molecules do not evolve like living things, at all. They do not mutate, reproduce, or have play by the rules of natural selection. Chemicals react, are very predictable, and move toward the lower energy state. They can polymerize and crystallize, but that is moving away from your so called complex molecules.
3. Science has not found any time between water remaining in liquid form and life. It has only been assumed. The beginning of life keeps getting pushed back and with the moon coming from earth after a planet collision there is little time for the earth to cool. We are back to needing stuff from outer space, maybe life itself? Then we just need to figure out who made ET.

The laws of the universe would say that life can not happen without a designer, they all point in that direction.
_________________
Jeff Ballard
Dallas, TX

jeff.ballard · Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 54 Location: Dallas, TX