iajrz

It likely can be printed by the reprap. I took a look at the plans, and only thing I noticed is it's likely you'll need to smooth out some parts (like the barrel) using an abrassive tool (because of the resolution the reprap has). Besides, take a good look at the solidoodle; it's the printer I'd recommend right now. If you want a reprap, use the solidoodle to print it the resolution is better and it needs no assembly. (If you're not used to assembling electronics, which might or might not involve soldering, I recommend you steer away from the reprap for quality 3D printing).

Is a dead cell not a cell? Plus, I am outside of the discussion of consciousness for now. I've been introducing it to the outskirts of the conversation because that's the next topic I'd like to work on. That is, once we agree on a fun definition of 'life'. (Fun means we can all agree and use it for evaluation of 'what life is'; the usefulness is forward porting and meaningful (ie: emotionally binding) discussion on automata and 'artificial intelligence'. One more thing! We do not build ourselves, and neither does the robot. Why is the 'top-down'- or 'bottom-up'-ness of its architecture/design/build relevant?

darkskyabove: Absolutely beautiful. Fits perfectly with the matter I've got in mind. fingolfin: I think the proposition is very significant. 'Cogito, ergo sum' expresses many things succintly, and it is also poetic. Self-consciousness, the capacity for identification, and an acceptance of reality. It is very hard to a) get to [all] the conclusions it arrives at and b) do it so succintly. But I digress! That wasn't the subject at hand. Say, any news on 'life' and the definitions we've been bandying about, fingolfin? It would be nice to know the mind of a fellow person who appears to have read the Silmarillion.

Don't worry about the nitpickiness, so long as it doesn't get us dancing in circles. They key word is painted "on" wood, not "being wood". The mechanisms do not belong to the cell, and are not the cell. It's kind of meant to be. Remember, we aren't coming up with new stuff: we're retrofitting to our preconceptions. Cellular happens to fit rather nicely with my preconceptions of life, and is a good tool to build the archetype. Victor would agree with your definition. I, on the other hand, am not willing to consider self-replicating automata not made out of cells as living beings unless they were self-conscious. That may be because they aren't built of cells, and I'd have to consider them as macro-cells or a special case for cells... perhaps I could consider them alive. Further along in the thread I'll mention my conclusion. (That would be the beginning of a true new definition, because we'd be taking such an unusual thing as auto-replying automata into account in our definition of life) It's great to know we're on the same page, and that we agree we're retrofitting definitions to gut instinct/preconceptions. On the other hand, any ideas on how to deal with the self-consciousness of automata? Even those which couldn't replicate themselves, I'd consider alive if they're self-conscious. Would you? Would anyone else in the thread?

Sounds good! Except I am not willing to accept a non-self conscious and non-cell-based entity as 'alive'. (The self-conscious is not part of the formal definition I have explained earlier in the thread. It is another preconception I have which is willfully not covered by the definition I am defending here. I haven't been able to succintly define self-consciousness and means to detect them in an object [or collection of objects]) But it might work for you. Is a roomba ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roomba ) alive? It docks itself in a station which provides energy for self-organizing its power source. Just the way we might go and lunch. And if it isn't, why? > huttnedu, I have a silly question: is a hand an object?

NAK. Read My own text. "Life is the concept used to describe the process through which a cell or group of cells manipulate entropy to preserve the mechanisms that perform the manipulation." A solar panel, although comprised of 'photovoltaic cells', isn't comprised of cells in the meaning I am using. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(biology) ). The life form that is dying is losing the mechanisms, therefore losing its capacity to manipulate entropy. I didn't say it 'completely holds back entropy', or 'successfully manipulates entropy'. When the life form is dying the mechanisms lose their capacity for colaborating in the entropy manipulation, and when the ability to manipulate entropy is completely lost, then 'dead' becomes the correct word to describe the status of the (now former) life form. If the solar panel was made of cells (as illustrated in the wikipedia link I posted) instead of photovoltaic cells, I'd not mind calling it 'alive'. In fact, there are solar panels made of cells: leaves. And they are alive, so long as they have mechanisms that work to keep entropy 'focused outside'. It so happens that they usually must remain in a favorable environment to keep their capacity, namely, they must be attached to a tree. But we do agree: there are nonliving systems which can 'focus entropy outside'. Why are those systems nonliving? Because those systems are not 'a cell' or 'a collection of cells'. I liked the phrasing 'focus entropy outside'. It's a good way to emphazise that entropy isn't being stopped, merely manipulated.

Agreed. Thus, the mechanisms reduce entropy of the mechanisms themselves, that is: the living have mechanisms to augment the entropy outside of them. The system's entropy augments, but the entropy within the living entity is 'held back', 'delayed', or (just to be clear): compensated by the entropy outside. The difference is that, while the rat remained alive, entropy'd be focused outside of the rat. When it died, then no mechanism would keep the rat's structure from being subject to entropy. A living being is not anti-entropic. But rather manipulates entropy in a way that preserves the mechanisms that allow the living being to function. Of course, just to avoid any confusion, any living being (according to me) is either a cell or a collection of cells. I could adjust the definition to better explain the relation with entropy: "Life is the concept used to describe the process through which a cell or group of cells manipulate entropy to preserve the mechanisms that perform the manipulation." The implication the the entropy is preserved in the system is implicit in the second law of thermodynamics, and the definition doesn't imply that a living being is a closed system.

I am happy to join the discussion, too. On with the argumentation. Sorry for the poor organization of the text. I think in leaps, and not everything will be in the best place for quick interpretation. I am burnt from editing the text, and it can be improved, but whatever. [/font]Well, your definition does not take into account the origin of the object in order to satisfy the condition of 'being alive', does it? That point still stands, and was only an aid to the discourse. I can do without those, but then I could be confused with a very silly and lean, but concise and unambiguous expression algorithm. I'd rather not do without the aids and adornments. It's a bit uncomfortable to stop every once in a while to beat around the bush and touch on these side issues, as if the perception of whether you are proposing a definition or a theory would make any difference in the main line of thought, when it doesn't. Please don't force me on this, though. It is very dull to write like a machine when you want to express ideas and concepts, as opposed to expressing algorithms and recipes. Duh? What am I supposed to say here? I don't even know why you said this in the first place [] I won't dally here, so as not beat around the bush. Your definition does not take this into account, though. You didn't give birth to yourself. Your motion can be attributed to human beings who copulated, and a female human being who gave birth, plus several humang beings who nurtured you. Are you not alive? Well, you do move against gravity. And so does the roomba. You do not take into account the origin [of the object being tested for 'life' status] in your definition, and this is what I meant. This is a weakness in it. If I knock you out with a sedative every once in a while, only letting you up when I please, does that make you be not alive? If someone abducted you while anesthesized, what difference would it made on whether you are or not alive? The roomba, like any 'living entity' (which we can identify thanks to the preconceptions we are retrofitting our definitions into) has a birth. It can also be forced to stop moving out of its own volition. Is the fact that it is easy to force it to stop moving enough to make it be 'not alive'? What if it didn't come with an on/off switch, and was solar powered? If we had an unobtainium which allowed for freezing (loose meaning, as in 'stopping the movement of') all of a human's atoms (by your definition, killing the human, because it could no longer move), and the human was periodically subject to this device's operation, would the human not be alive whenever the device was not operating on it? Why, again, is the roomba different? Birth is significant to the argument (and so is the origin of the object we are trying to clasify as 'living' or 'dead'), because it means that everything alive right now was assembled at some point. Maybe it was inside a womb, or in some juicy spot where a cell suddenly started spending resources on replicating its internals and splitting off of the duplicates. Or a factory. What's the difference, according to your definition? Take this as an opportunity to refine it, or drop it. Or maybe accepting that the roomba is alive according to your definition, and being 'ok' with that fact (and deal with the philosophical implications or whatever). Or maybe point out where in your definition of life isthe origin or the traceability of the start of the movement taken into account. 'Moves by itself against gravity', states your definition. Well, after you turn it on, it walks around, goes back to charging, and starts moving again... you didn't order it to start moving again. You do expect it to, just the way you expect a sleeping newborn to wake up a while after falling asleep. The child responded to its genes. The roomba to its wiring. Where is the structure of the internals taken into account? Is a newborn thought of as alive after he has already slept and woken again, or right after taken out of the beautiful, organic factory that we call 'womb'? Or is it when it is self-conscious, or autonomous? (If so, when is any other mammal considered to be alive, and why is it different?) Why would the roomba different from the newborn? [/font]My thoughts on the matter are, sadly, irrelevant. Furthermore, that bit of reasoning gets you in a tight spot: If you came in the night and kidnapped my newborn child, would I wake up the next morning and think, "Oh gee.. it must've woken up and moved itself right on outta here!" No way, I don't think I would. Is the child, therefore, not alive? Also, repeat the same thought experiment placing the newborn within the unobtainium described above and having it stolen while, in your definition, it is dead. Nay, a cell is an object. If the cell stopped functioning, but is not still disassembled, is it no longer a cell? It is still a cell: it is still an identifiable object which fits the archetype we use to describe a cell. I got to see dead cells once. They were cells encased in plastic. It was readily identifiable and it had a shape, just like the living ones I got to see when I put a leaf under the lens (so both are objects). Why dead? Those cells no longer had the mechanisms that I mention in my definition, so they are dead to me. They weren't moving, so they are dead to you, too. They weren't self sustaining, so they are dead to Victor, too. But they were cells. For 'Entropy', refer to the classical thermodinamics definition. Also, for context, have a read through of the second law of thermodynamics. On second thought, only reading through the second law of thermodynamics should do the trick. I do not mean to offend with this behavior of pointing out where to get the info instead of running the risk of dancing in circles because of a mistake I can make in writing. I am just lazy. And do not want to dance in circles, too. Ah, wikipedia will do as a source for the info, unless it says something blatantly stupid. I read the articles I refer to earlier today, so they should be OK.

I reject that definition. It must happen in an entity identifiable as a cell for me to consider it life. I have the preconception that Earth is not alive, although it has elements (namely, trees) inside which harvest energy from 'outside' (the Sun) and perform anti-entropic processes (they foment the replication of the anti-entropic processes within, therefore augment the anti-entropic capabilities of Earth. They keep Earth capable of sustaining anti-entropic processes by functioning).

Hello, everyone. You have been throwing definitions around for a while in this thread. Have you noticed that you already have a working definition for 'life' and 'being alive'? Even if you do not agree on which unambiguous definition to use (to which I see no purpose, for there is no overarching discussion which would reach different conclusions or yield different results depending on what is predictively considered to be alive, as opposed to the utility it would have in other debates, such as abortion rights), you do agree on what is alive and what is not. Hence the reticence to say, for instance, that a cube of ice is alive, even though it has veins of fluid moving inside, pores that interact with the environment, and changes to its structure which depend on variations to the environment. And are not 'because' of gravity, or at least not directly. Just as our movements aren't dictated by gravity (at least not directly, as far as I can tell). I think we can agree that this is a fun debate, but I must say it is devoid of significance because of the argument I just stated. I do enjoy this, though, and I will carry on with the carousing. Have you guys seen the Roomba? It is a robot which moves around the house, cleaning. And then it goes back to its charging station. Is the Roomba alive? Well, according to Victor, the Roomba is not, because it's not self-replicant (thus not the product or subject of evolution). According to huttnedu, it is, because it is an object (has defined boundaries) and it moves itself against gravity. huttnedu's definitions do not account for origin or structure of the life form, but of it's being an object and capable of movement against gravity. Similarly, a computer program that modifies itself and self-replicates is alive according to Victor's definition. Ah, also, corporations are alive according to that definition. Now, having played the game of definitions and testing the definitions, I'd like to propose my own. I must emphasize that I seek only to define life in a way that fits all my preconceptions of what is alive and what isn't. Hopefully, it will encompass most (if not all) of your own preconceptions and you won't be able to use it to prove that something which I consider not to be alive is alive. And here we go: Life is the concept used to describe the process through which a cell or group of cells hold back enthropy of the mechanisms that allows it to keep up holding back enthropy of said mechanisms. Having such mechanisms allows a cell or group of cells to be identified as 'living'. Dying is, then, getting closer and finally into a state in which it is no longer possible to hold back enthropy of the mechanisms. Cells now must be illustrated, but I am rather on the lazy side of the spectrum. If anyone does not know the archetype of a cell which I refer to, please let me know and I will link you to some silly article describing it. Or you can google, which is more productive, and post about your confusions, which would be amazing to people who like describing cells. There are no words that I knowingly use with a special meaning, so please feel free to discuss my post without resorting to special-case definitons, unless you really don't understand what I mean, then I shall try and reformulate. (Like Moncaloono, I'd rather rephrase than get you guys to use my special wording). Finally, something I'd like you guys to help me out with: I'd like to work out a way to add an 'or' clause to my definiton which allows for self-counscious entities (in the wide sense of the word which; form factor is not an issue as long as you can identify a unit, a 'being'. For instance, a computer program is an entity, because you can identify 'one' program. The borg are an entity, because you can identify a unit, even if the unit is the whole of the components. For the matter, a person is an entity, but a cell is also an entity.) to be alive. This is: I have the preconception that a self-conscious robot/computer program/automaton is alive, and I'd like to encompass it in my definition. Salut!