If scientists create self-replicating machines... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

huangshan -> If scientists create self-replicating machines... (11/2/2009 1:59:46 PM)

If scientists create self-replicating machines, have they created life?

Why or why not? Keep in mind that there is a myriad of definitions of life and its nature.

Side note: If error is introduced to the replication process, the capacity for evolution is also introduced.



GroupW -> RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... (11/2/2009 2:29:06 PM)

Isn't a computer virus essentially such a thing?

Or certain crystals?



huangshan -> RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... (11/2/2009 2:51:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

Isn't a computer virus essentially such a thing?

Or certain crystals?


Non-computer viruses aren't considered alive. There used to be some disagreement to it but the consensus is now that they are not alive.

I'm not really clear on why, though. I mean, I know what the technical definition of 'alive' is that prevents viruses from being categorized that way, but they seem to fall into a category which needs a name. They're organic macro-molecules, but they're not the same sort of thing as, say, long-chain hydrocarbons.

I don't know about crystals.



drmark -> RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... (11/2/2009 3:47:07 PM)

quote:

If scientists create self-replicating machines, have they created life?
Nope! Jesus clearly states in John 5:26 - "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself." So the only way man can create life is if God grants the ability. I frankly don't ever see that happening.



huangshan -> RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... (11/2/2009 4:50:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

If scientists create self-replicating machines, have they created life?
Nope! Jesus clearly states in John 5:26 - "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself." So the only way man can create life is if God grants the ability. I frankly don't ever see that happening.


That doesn't strike me as being a statement of exclusivity.



demolay -> RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... (11/2/2009 5:09:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: huangshan

If scientists create self-replicating machines, have they created life?

Why or why not? Keep in mind that there is a myriad of definitions of life and its nature.

Side note: If error is introduced to the replication process, the capacity for evolution is also introduced.


Hmmm, there aren't too many machines out there today that aren't already manufactured by other machines. Does that qualify? Maybe you could be more specific as to what an "individual" would be in this scenario, and what environmental support (like human workers filling parts bins) would be allowed or disallowed.

But, if your premise is granted, would this be strong evidence that life is intelligently designed?

On your side note: when my patio umbrella was manufactured with a large scratch on the pole, I hardly would call that "evolution".



demolay -> RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... (11/2/2009 5:14:52 PM)

quote:

I'm not really clear on why, though. I mean, I know what the technical definition of 'alive' is that prevents viruses from being categorized that way


Its interesting that doctors can't come to a consensus on what "death" means, but now there's agreement on "life"? I'll bite, what is it?



huangshan -> RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... (11/2/2009 6:00:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: demolay

quote:

ORIGINAL: huangshan

If scientists create self-replicating machines, have they created life?

Why or why not? Keep in mind that there is a myriad of definitions of life and its nature.

Side note: If error is introduced to the replication process, the capacity for evolution is also introduced.


Hmmm, there aren't too many machines out there today that aren't already manufactured by other machines. Does that qualify? Maybe you could be more specific as to what an "individual" would be in this scenario, and what environmental support (like human workers filling parts bins) would be allowed or disallowed.

But, if your premise is granted, would this be strong evidence that life is intelligently designed?


Machines that can replicate themselves. A factory robot does not produce copies of itself, for example. It may make tools, or cars, or something similar.

This wouldn't be evidence that life is intelligently designed, but it would be evidence that life could be intelligently designed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: demolay

Its interesting that doctors can't come to a consensus on what "death" means, but now there's agreement on "life"? I'll bite, what is it?


Actually, I guess it's somewhat more ambiguous than I thought.

Further research by Stanley and others established that a virus consists of nucleic acids (DNA or RNA) enclosed in a protein coat that may also shelter viral proteins involved in infection. By that description, a virus seems more like a chemistry set than an organism. But when a virus enters a cell (called a host after infection), it is far from inactive. It sheds its coat, bares its genes and induces the cell’s own replication machinery to reproduce the intruder’s DNA or RNA and manufacture more viral protein based on the instructions in the viral nucleic acid. The newly created viral bits assemble and, voilà, more virus arises, which also may infect other cells.

These behaviors are what led many to think of viruses as existing at the border between chemistry and life. More poetically, virologists Marc H. V. van Regenmortel of the University of Strasbourg in France and Brian W. J. Mahy of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recently said that with their dependence on host cells, viruses lead “a kind of borrowed life.” Interestingly, even though biologists long favored the view that viruses were mere boxes of chemicals, they took advantage of viral activity in host cells to determine how nucleic acids code for proteins: indeed, modern molecular biology rests on a foundation of information gained through viruses.



rawr.ben -> RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... (11/2/2009 6:03:46 PM)

Under certain definitions of life, fire qualifies. It grows, reproduces, consumes and creates waste . . .



AnalystsAreUs -> RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... (11/2/2009 6:53:23 PM)

It's always been my belief that if evolution were ever remotely possible, the best it could produce would be a cancer.



huangshan -> RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... (11/2/2009 11:24:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawr.ben

Under certain definitions of life, fire qualifies. It grows, reproduces, consumes and creates waste . . .


But fire is itself a state, a property of chemicals. Fire that's "alive" is simply the presence of the fire itself and fire that is "dead" (as it were) is simply not there at all. I think fire is a very strong analogy to life in many ways, but I don't think it can be considered alive.



drmark -> RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... (11/3/2009 8:28:49 AM)

quote:

But fire is itself a state, a property of chemicals.
Sounds just like what a godless naturalist is trying to prove: life is itself a state, a property of (certain) chemicals.



demolay -> RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... (11/3/2009 10:13:52 AM)

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: demolay
Hmmm, there aren't too many machines out there today that aren't already manufactured by other machines. Does that qualify? Maybe you could be more specific as to what an "individual" would be in this scenario, and what environmental support (like human workers filling parts bins) would be allowed or disallowed.


Machines that can replicate themselves. A factory robot does not produce copies of itself, for example. It may make tools, or cars, or something similar.


I think you're just showing unjustified bias for God's design for life, while proposing something radically different as a premise. Machines that make computer chips are making parts that they themselves use. Machines that make tools like drills, machine lathes, etc are used in their own manufacture. The fact that some machines bear "fruit", like cars, that only benefit us can be said to be a clever "evolutionary" symbioses between man and machine. Machines consume resources, they leave waste, and they eventually return to the "dust" from which they came.

I think an analogy for every aspect of the definition of "life" can be made for the mechanical infrastructure of industrual society today. What does it lack? To an atheist, the thought of the creation of life is just a manufacturing process rather than an endowment from God. Yet you and I both know in our guts that there is no true life in the scenario I just described. But why not? Can you define it?

quote:

Side note: If error is introduced to the replication process, the capacity for evolution is also introduced.

Machines have certainly evolved over time. But they evolve because of the limited intelligence and knowledge of their creators, and our inability to make "perfect" machines from the outset. God had no such limitation. He created everything perfectly for His purposes from the outset.

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: demolay
Its interesting that doctors can't come to a consensus on what "death" means, but now there's agreement on "life"? I'll bite, what is it?


Actually, I guess it's somewhat more ambiguous than I thought.


Indeed, it is impossible to know life without knowing God.



drmark -> RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... (11/3/2009 10:21:22 AM)

quote:

Indeed, it is impossible to know life without knowing God.
AMEN! John 14:6



huangshan -> RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... (11/3/2009 10:55:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

But fire is itself a state, a property of chemicals.
Sounds just like what a godless naturalist is trying to prove: life is itself a state, a property of (certain) chemicals.


O...kay...

Are you accusing me of being a Godless naturalist?

Because the argument I'm putting forth is exactly that life is not simply a property of certain chemicals, that it can exist in a (machine) medium vastly different from the standard idea of "life".



huangshan -> RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... (11/3/2009 10:56:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: demolay

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: demolay
Hmmm, there aren't too many machines out there today that aren't already manufactured by other machines. Does that qualify? Maybe you could be more specific as to what an "individual" would be in this scenario, and what environmental support (like human workers filling parts bins) would be allowed or disallowed.


Machines that can replicate themselves. A factory robot does not produce copies of itself, for example. It may make tools, or cars, or something similar.


I think you're just showing unjustified bias for God's design for life, while proposing something radically different as a premise. Machines that make computer chips are making parts that they themselves use. Machines that make tools like drills, machine lathes, etc are used in their own manufacture. The fact that some machines bear "fruit", like cars, that only benefit us can be said to be a clever "evolutionary" symbioses between man and machine. Machines consume resources, they leave waste, and they eventually return to the "dust" from which they came.


...and yet a cursory glance at supply chains indicates that machines make computer chips for non-manufacturing machines, machines that make tools make tools that are unrelated to their own design, and programmers and installers are needed to set them all up in the first place. If that has anything to do with life at all it's at best a co-opted pseudo-life.



drmark -> RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... (11/3/2009 11:10:40 AM)

quote:

Are you accusing me of being a Godless naturalist?
Pardon me, but I thought you were a self-acclaimed "agnostic theist", whatever that's supposed to mean. I merely stated that godless naturalists who try to produce life in vitro are trying to prove their religious agenda - that life is nothing more than a property of certain chemicals.

quote:

life is not simply a property of certain chemicals, that it can exist in a (machine) medium vastly different from the standard idea of "life".
I'm sorry that I'm not following you here. What is "the standard idea of life"? What is "a vastly different medium"? What do machines have to do with life?



huangshan -> RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... (11/3/2009 1:41:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Are you accusing me of being a Godless naturalist?
Pardon me, but I thought you were a self-acclaimed "agnostic theist", whatever that's supposed to mean.


...and let's leave it at that. It would be nice if a discussion could be had without someone trying to impugn motives and assert that there's a agenda at every turn.

quote:

quote:

life is not simply a property of certain chemicals, that it can exist in a (machine) medium vastly different from the standard idea of "life".
I'm sorry that I'm not following you here. What is "the standard idea of life"? What is "a vastly different medium"? What do machines have to do with life?


That is what this thread is discussing. Again, in my first post:

If scientists create self-replicating machines, have they created life?

Why or why not? Keep in mind that there is a myriad of definitions of life and its nature.

My own position is that if a simple machine can reproduce itself, it is indeed a form of life, albeit alien to common notions of life.



drmark -> RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... (11/3/2009 1:55:53 PM)

quote:

Keep in mind that there is a myriad of definitions of life and its nature.
Exactly! There is no "standard idea of life" in the secular world. Which is precisely why this discussion must focus on God's definition of life since He is the only Source of life. Are you getting it now, huangshan?

quote:

My own position is that if a simple machine can reproduce itself, it is indeed a form of life, albeit alien to common notions of life.
And your position is wrong! How did the "simple machine" originate in the first place? Are crystals which "reproduce themselves" alive?



huangshan -> RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... (11/3/2009 2:17:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Keep in mind that there is a myriad of definitions of life and its nature.
Exactly! There is no "standard idea of life" in the secular world. Which is precisely why this discussion must focus on God's definition of life since He is the only Source of life. Are you getting it now, huangshan?


Are you referencing John 5:26? Again, I don't see how that's mutually exclusive to anything else.

quote:

quote:

My own position is that if a simple machine can reproduce itself, it is indeed a form of life, albeit alien to common notions of life.
And your position is wrong! How did the "simple machine" originate in the first place? Are crystals which "reproduce themselves" alive?


As I noted, "scientists" are the originator. But that was just an offhanded attribution. There's nothing stopping a businessman or minister or an autodidact from doing the same thing. The creator in my hypothetical is interchangeable.

I'm not sure what the argument is for crystals being alive. I'm not familiar with that one. As far as I can tell, they only "grow" insofar as molecules are passively added to existing crystals and they only "reproduce" insofar as molecules are built up onto preexisting structures. But I'm not a geologist so I'm not sure if I have that right or if there is some more interesting factor that I'm missing.



demolay -> RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... (11/3/2009 3:32:35 PM)

quote:

...and yet a cursory glance at supply chains indicates that machines make computer chips for non-manufacturing machines, machines that make tools make tools that are unrelated to their own design, and programmers and installers are needed to set them all up in the first place. If that has anything to do with life at all it's at best a co-opted pseudo-life.


So what? Ever hear of fruit? To an evolutionist, fruit is the enticement to create symbiotic relationships with other life forms. Why can't we be that enticed life form?

Did you know that termites could not survive without the bacteria in their gut that actually digest cellulose? Nor could the bacteria without the termite to bring "munched" cellulose to it. Are they co-opted or psuedo-life because they can't survive without each other?

quote:

...and installers are needed to set them all up in the first place.

As you keep trying to tell drmark, how it was created has nothing to do with "being" life in your world view, right? Weren't "scientists" in your own premise? This seems very inconsistent of you to mention this at all.



drmark -> RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... (11/3/2009 3:42:23 PM)

quote:

This seems very inconsistent of you to mention this at all.
Thanks, demolay, I was beginning to wonder if I had missed something here...



huangshan -> RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... (11/3/2009 4:12:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: demolay

quote:

...and yet a cursory glance at supply chains indicates that machines make computer chips for non-manufacturing machines, machines that make tools make tools that are unrelated to their own design, and programmers and installers are needed to set them all up in the first place. If that has anything to do with life at all it's at best a co-opted pseudo-life.


So what? Ever hear of fruit? To an evolutionist, fruit is the enticement to create symbiotic relationships with other life forms. Why can't we be that enticed life form?

Did you know that termites could not survive without the bacteria in their gut that actually digest cellulose? Nor could the bacteria without the termite to bring "munched" cellulose to it. Are they co-opted or psuedo-life because they can't survive without each other?


That's an interesting point, and it opens up the possibility of talking about a single large super-organism consisting of humans, plants, animals and technology, but that's not really what this thread is about. Insofar as separate actors are interfering every step of the way in the "factory-as-life" scenario, I don't think it can be considered life. It's not a symbiotic relationship, it's something that is animated every step of the way, like a puppet.

In the case of bacteria and termites, the bacteria are necessary for the termites and the termites are necessary for the bacteria. The bacteria can be considered a component of the termite just as the microorganisms in humans can be considered a component of humans. This is not the case with machines as they are today.

quote:

quote:

...and installers are needed to set them all up in the first place.

As you keep trying to tell drmark, how it was created has nothing to do with "being" life in your world view, right? Weren't "scientists" in your own premise? This seems very inconsistent of you to mention this at all.


I'm drawing a delineation between the creator or process that originally conceived of a life form (where I am indeed arguing that it is largely interchangeable) and the organism's reproductive system. There isn't an actual "machine reproductive process" there's essentially people building machines on a whim. To the extent that machines reproduce something, they don't reproduce themselves, unless we're talking about the scenario I outlined in my first post. The scenario that you outline is simply a productive process which is itself dependent on other entities producing them, not a reproductive process.



leftwing -> RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... (11/3/2009 4:21:34 PM)

No. Assembling a machine is hardly the same as creating a living entity.



drmark -> RE: If scientists create self-replicating machines... (11/3/2009 4:34:40 PM)

quote:

I'm drawing a delineation between the creator or process that originally conceived of a life form (where I am indeed arguing that it is largely interchangeable) and the organism's reproductive system.
What is largely interchangeable? Forgive me, huangshan, but I'm getting more confused by each post. How can an intelligent designer/creator be anywhere near "interchangeable" with random, unguided, naturalistic processes? How can you delineate an organism's reproductive system from the initiation of life in future organisms. Has anyone ever produced life apart from pre-existing reproductive mechanisms? Except, of course, GOD!



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI