Internet-based Life?

[JFrankA]

JFrankA,



Which is exactly what I'm talking about.



But eventually it probably will. Since we can already forsee ethical issues, why not discuss the problem NOW before THEN?



Yeah, but it couldn't go into the outside world. I think it would be really wrong to not be able to experience reality...



At the cost of holding a sentient being captive without a way out.


Angus McPresley,

Unless it could be copied onto a robot and leave when it ever it chose and could not be yanked back into the web, it's not ethical.

Regarding modern software, I doubt it has any "wants" or desires though...

Regarding the creation of digital life I disagree, unless it can operate independant of the internet and can leave whenever it wants, without being forceably yanked back into the web, you are denying it the ability to experience reality.

That is what makes psychosis so awful is that a person is deprived of the ability to remain attached to reality. We have developed whole families of drugs to treat psychosis.

All sentient beings should be able to experience reality.


INRM

...but the internet would be that being's reality.

Is all sentient being's realities the same? There are sentient beings who still live in tribes but have no clue about the reality of a city. I'm thinking that the internet isn't trapping him, it would be his reality.

Let's use the old two-dimensional sentient beings who live on Flatland. Someone ther who knows that there is a third dimension might know that there is a "third dimension" reality, but the being's reality is still two dimensional.

Wouldn't something like that apply here? We wouldn't know HIS reality at all.

 

[Starthinker]

Is the story posted anywhere? It sounds cool.

Alas, no, I abandoned Terminal 666 (the working title) in favor of Three Men in a Tub, my UFO abduction story.

 

[INRM]

JFrankA,

...but the internet would be that being's reality.

There would still be a reality outside of that reality meaning life outside the net. You know the reality we all live in. I don't think it would be right to deprive a sentient being of the reality we all live in.

here are sentient beings who still live in tribes but have no clue about the reality of a city.

But that tribe is not trapped inside a computer or a network of computers. It's on the surface of the Earth. The same Earth we're on.


INRM

 

[Little 10 Toes]

I can't recall where I read/heard this, but recently there was something which speculated about the possibility of non-biological life evolving via the Internet. Needless to say, I'm certain this would involve something having to do with emergent properties and whatnot, but it's a topic I was just musing about.

I'm also guessing that this would have to open up the standard definition of "life" as we currently know it. Would it qualify as a kind of artificial intelligence? Has anyone else heard about this sort of thing? What are your thoughts?

"Recently"? I have a book "Computer Viruses, Artificial Live and Evolution" dated 1993. (Author Mark A. Ludwig, ISBN 0-929408-07-1) The book talks about (among other things) would a computer virus be concidered alive? It is "aware" of it's enviroment, and it reproduces. It also talks about how anti-virus software is the main factor in virus evolution. I have tried to read the book a couple of times, but there is some higher math that I can't understand.

Edit: here's a link that better describes/reviews his book:
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof77.htm

 

[grmcdorman]

The issue with that, though, is that the computer viruses (virii?) don't change by themselves, at all. Any change in the code is the result of human work.

The "awareness", for that matter, is pretty basic (not quite stimulus/response but close).

I would tend to say (as a software developer) that the author doesn't know much about how software works - and in particular how it changes.

The malware/virus "evolution" is closer to an arms race (or *shudder* intelligent design).

 

[Angus McPresley]

Regarding the creation of digital life I disagree, unless it can operate independant of the internet and can leave whenever it wants, without being forceably yanked back into the web, you are denying it the ability to experience reality.

What can we do, then, to save thermophilic bacteria from the hell of having to live in boiling water?

 

[INRM]

Angus McPresley,

You are obviously comparing apples and oranges.

The thermophilic bacteria are not living in the internet. They are living in reality, in hot water.


INRM

 

[Zelenius]

The issue with that, though, is that the computer viruses (virii?) don't change by themselves, at all. Any change in the code is the result of human work.

Unless the computer viruses are programmed to rewrite their own code to better adapt to their surroundings to ensure their "success". This doesn't sound so far fetched the more I think about it. It might require a certain level of self-awareness or artificial intelligence with self-learning capabilities that may not be available yet.

It would be like virus or bacteria rewriting their own genetic codes to better withstand antibiotics or virusides or to become "smarter" in other ways. This could greatly accelerate their rate of evolution and make them very dangerous.

I could imagine the high-tech/secret weapons researchers in the militaries of various countries showing interest in either computer/internet viruses that rewrite their own code, using them to shut down the computer systems of their enemies, as well as releasing "smart" bacteria as biological weapons to terrorize their enemies in especially horrific ways. Even more horrific would be some evil geniuses figuring out ways to get these clever computer viruses and smart bacteria/virus to synergistically work together and maybe co-evolve in ways many of us can't even begin to imagine at our current "primitive" level of technology. Super advanced nanotechnology/quantum computing may lead to freaky "emergence" like this(note how few computer scientists 25 or so years ago accurately predicted how powerful the Internet would become). Just imagine advanced artificial intelligence/computer programs assisting and educating "smart" bacteria and virus in how to become more dangerous to human life as a first step.

While some good could come out of cyberlife, just as much evil could be unleashed as well.

 

[Angus McPresley]

Angus McPresley,

You are obviously comparing apples and oranges.

The thermophilic bacteria are not living in the internet. They are living in reality, in hot water.

They are living in the environment that they evolved in - just like the digital beings we're talking about would be. And they are just as connected - or just as removed - from reality.

I just can't understand why you think such beings would be removed from reality anyway. They would have more and varied sense organs than any human, and in many more locations. I for one might even be jealous of them.

I really think you are committing the logical falacy of judging their wants and needs by human standards.

 

[JFrankA]

They are living in the environment that they evolved in - just like the digital beings we're talking about would be. And they are just as connected - or just as removed - from reality.

I just can't understand why you think such beings would be removed from reality anyway. They would have more and varied sense organs than any human, and in many more locations. I for one might even be jealous of them.

I really think you are committing the logical falacy of judging their wants and needs by human standards.

I agree with you, Angus. That's my point exactly. How do we know exactly not only what they think, but how the perceive? I mean, we both can look at a tree and perceive it two different ways, also one of us could want to build a tree house and the other one of us could want to chop it down. And we are same species.

 

[INRM]

Angus McPresley,

They are living in the environment that they evolved in - just like the digital beings we're talking about would be. And they are just as connected - or just as removed - from reality.

Not exactly. Those thermophilic bacteria are not created on a computer or a network, or networks of interconnected computers, they are actual life.

The digital beings created on a computer or on the internet would more or less exist in an environment not entirely different from the matrix. It might seem real to them but it's not real. They only exist on that computer.

Outside they have no substance.


INRM

 

[JFrankA]

Angus McPresley,


Not exactly. Those thermophilic bacteria are not created on a computer or a network, or networks of interconnected computers, they are actual life.

The digital beings created on a computer or on the internet would more or less exist in an environment not entirely different from the matrix. It might seem real to them but it's not real. They only exist on that computer.

Outside they have no substance.


INRM

...but you didn't address the point: you are assuming that the being wants our reality.

Hell, if you want to go into a comparison of the movie "The Matrix" there were humans who preferred the matrix's reality over the human's reality.

You're assuming a desire based human's ideals for reality.

My other point on this that is being missed here is that if these beings (not just one), want to explore our reality, then this gives them something to shoot for. In fact, they'd be at a very real advantage because we, as beings from this reality, can contact and aid them, not only to that goal, (if, indeed, they want to achieve the goal of experiencing our reality), but to aid them in other ways as well. They could also aid us in maybe us experiencing their reality.

They will be born knowing they are not the only beings in the universe with the knowledge that there are beings "out there" in another reality (or dimension if you will), who aren't gods, but allies who are willing to help them and they can help us.

I don't see the cruelty, sorry.

 

[INRM]

JFrankA,

...but you didn't address the point: you are assuming that the being wants our reality.

Why wouldn't it? Even if all of them didn't, some of them would.

Hell, if you want to go into a comparison of the movie "The Matrix" there were humans who preferred the matrix's reality over the human's reality.

There however were those who preferred reality though... Denying a being who is self-aware the right to experience reality (which in my opinion should be a basic right) is just reprehensible.

You're assuming a desire based human's ideals for reality.

Why would a sentient being with the capacity for higher thinking and logic not want to see the world as it really is, not as an illusion?

My other point on this that is being missed here is that if these beings (not just one), want to explore our reality, then this gives them something to shoot for.

Why should they have to shoot for something that we are all naturally entitled to without having to shoot for?


INRM

 

[JFrankA]

JFrankA,



Why wouldn't it? Even if all of them didn't, some of them would.



There however were those who preferred reality though... Denying a being who is self-aware the right to experience reality (which in my opinion should be a basic right) is just reprehensible.

Again, you are making assumptions of another being's wants, desires, needs and reality on your ideals and values. Reality is not being denied, but your concept of reality is not given to these beings.

Quite a different thing.

Why would a sentient being with the capacity for higher thinking and logic not want to see the world as it really is, not as an illusion?

Wait. Why would their concept of reality be an illusion? It's their reality. Conversly, in all probablity our reality would be an illusion to them!

Sounds like you're making a judgement to me. Please take no offense.

Why should they have to shoot for something that we are all naturally entitled to without having to shoot for?

Are you saying that we, in our reality, are naturally entitled to live in space? It took us quite a while to even bend that reality and we still can't exist in space, or even other planets...yet. I don't know about you, but that's our reality. We are not made to survive in space without spacesuits, spaceships, something to get us off the Earth, etc.

Are you saying that whatever brought us into existance was being cruel because it didn't equipt us with the capablity to survive and traverse space to distant planets to see the reality of other worlds?

And, to push it a little further here, if we find another life form many, many worlds away that is very different from us but sentient (let's say they are extermely tiny, lives in the heart of volcano, and have a "hive mind") is "whatever brought us into existance" being cruel to us because we can't live in the volcano, shrink down to being tiny, become part of the "hive mind", and experience that being's reality?

I know I'm getting a little "sci-fi" here, but this whole discussion is "sci-fi". My arguement is basically this: How can you say that another being, even if that being is in a computer, say that their reality is an illusion and they not only want to experience your reality but it's our duty to force them to?

Hell, this discussion alone proves that your reality is different from mine, and we are both human!

 

[INRM]

JFrankA,

I think there's a bit of a difference from a species living on a planet, than internet based life living inside a group of interconnected computers.


INRM

 

[ktesibios]

This was the topic of a short story I had written about 10 years ago. Each computer acted as a cell in large neural network which became conscious. It developed the characteristics of a child and just wanted company. Since the only way to get rid of it was to turn every single computer in the world off at the same time and no matter how hard they tried the human race just simply couldn't do it they decided in the end to live with "humanity's child" and just got used to random chat windows popping up whenever the child wanted to talk with someone.

That sounds a lot like Arthur C. Clarke's 1964 story "Dial F for Frankenstein". The premise there was that with the advent of satellite links the global telephone switching network became large and interconnected enough to function like a brain. As if dealing with the Phone Company wasn't bad enough...

 

[JFrankA]

JFrankA,

I think there's a bit of a difference from a species living on a planet, than internet based life living inside a group of interconnected computers.


INRM

There is?

Why?

Both are natural enviroments for that particular species.

And, please, no offense, but if you insist on this view, I would put it you that it is you who is being cruel. You are making a judgement, based upon your values and your reality, on a being that is born into his own natural environment and even though it's inside a group of interconnected computers, it is that environment that the being is meant to grow and thrive, so it is his own natural enviroment - isn't good enough for him. What's more, you are forcing him to experiencing an evironment hostle to his health without any regard as to how he feels about it.

Regardless if it's a group of interconnected computers, inside a 500 degree molten lava, a sunny hill, or the middle of deep space where there is no light or heat, it is that being's enviornment, evloved to grow and thrive in whatever their environment is.

To assume that your enviroment is better than another being's, be it computer or the surface of the sun, is making a judgement based upon what YOU consider "reality".

 

[INRM]

JFrankA,

Okay let's play a game. If it was sentient, and if it wanted to be free of the internet and wanted to experience reality for all it was worth. Would it be wrong to keep him trapped in the computer or internet against his/her/it's consent?


INRM

 

[JFrankA]

JFrankA,

Okay let's play a game. If it was sentient, and if it wanted to be free of the internet and wanted to experience reality for all it was worth. Would it be wrong to keep him trapped in the computer or internet against his/her/it's consent?


INRM

Okay, let's take your game and give it a twist:

I am sentient. I want to be free of the Earth and be able to visit other planets. I want to experience all the climates that every planet have to offer: I want to fly between planets quickly, surviving the vaccum of space. I want to swim in oceans of methane and able to breathe it prop. I want to wade through the lava and feel the heat between my toes.

According to you, nature, for lack of a better word, has made it impossible for me to do all that and is therefore cruel to me.

Now back to your game:

First of all, it wouldn't be wanting to experience reality "for all that it's worth". It would simply be interested in experiencing OUR reality.

The second reason it wouldn't be cruel because if the being wants to experience OUR reality, then both us and that being can work together to make it happen. Is that cruel?

Which brings me to my last point: What if I wanted to experience HIS reality? Wouldn't be true that I wouldn't be experiencing reality "for all that it's worth" because I'm not experiencing HIS reality? After all, if we are going for reality "for all that it's worth" we would have to experience all being's reality.

So he's being cruel not having a way of allowing ME into HIS.

Look, I understand what you're saying. But my point is a being's reality is what they percieve and what they have been evloved to survive in. Doesn't matter if it's a doghouse, the center of a star, or a group of computers.

 

[INRM]

JFrankA,

You are kind of exaggerating what I'm saying...

That's not what I said at all. I just said that a simulation of sentient life shouldn't be created as sentient beings deserve the right to experience reality.

And when I said that, I did not mean wading through lava or what have you. I simply meant existing not in some computer generated illusion.


INRM