Robots: Alive or No?

[KyoraSan]

I had a discussion with my friend about a DnD game we were about to play. Ironically enough, it got onto the topic of undead robots.
Nevermind how, it just did.
Anyway, so I eventually say "Robots aren't alive, so how can they become undead? And more accurately, how can a robot 'die?' in the first place?"

Thus began a long and tedious argument. That's still going on as I type this. But let's get to the facts of the matter. This argument essentially concerns what the meaning of 'life' is and the meaning of 'robot'. And not in the cosmic sense, I mean literally - what makes us alive?

I think its several factors.
Our ability to reproduce.
Our ability to 'think' and make decisions.
Our ability to mutate
Our ability to 'create' ourselves
Our ability to be self aware.
Our ability to be made of organic compounds (though arguably that's not an ability)

Now, given that the defination of robot includes the fact that they are constructed, I'm going to ignore the last one for the moment.

Now, a robot at first might not be able to reproduce. Generally, But I'm sure some strange doctor might create a process where by robots are able to reproduce. After all, if nature can do it, with enough time and effort we could replicate it.

And about our thinking skills. While at this point it is debatable if we ourselves are in control of our decisions, we can largely assume that we are, to the extent that we have SOME control over telling our brains what to do, as opposed to the brain being an omnipotent monstrosity that only let's us think we're in control...jesus that's a scary thought...and if it's true then my brain wants me to not trust it...but then why...WHY?!?
...okay I'm better.
Anyway, back on topic, our brains function largely on a 'choice' where as a machine invaribly has to come down to a 'do' or 'do not.' In other words, the flow is easy to see and if we understood the mechanisms, then we can predict its thought patterns EXACTLY, because those thoughts don't change.

Our ability to mutate is essential. And we don't just do it when we're conceived, either. Humans have at least 17 mutations threw out their life, savvy? Robots can't do that.

A machine has to be completely manufactured. A human, once in a single cell, takes control of its own destiny. However, a robot doesn't. Once its created, it doesn't alter itself it can't automatically repair itself (generally) and the rest.

Self aware, o be a robot it has to be.

In other words, it's NOT ALIVE IF ITS A ROBOT.

 

[Xocrates]

I had to come out of lurking to reply to this. Partly because you seem to have several common misconceptions. Most of all by confusing stuff that exist along life with things that are part of it's definition.

Firstly, the definition of "alive" is already pretty damn dodgy, being more often defined as what you're pointing to when you mention it.

Secondly, it seems an awful lot of people (you included) confuse being conscious with being alive. At this point it's pretty much given that single cell organisms are alive (virus are a lot more arguable), although something a single cell lacks is a multicelular brain.
Being conscient,(or self aware, or being able to "think", call it whatever you like) is therefore not a pre-requisite to life.
Even many more "complex" beings (trees are a good example, but many "lesser" animals too) are not conscient.

Similarly, mutation, although virtually inescapable, is again not a requisite. Again I point to single cell organisms who can got through several generations without suffering mutations (or at least, noticeable ones).

Curiously, and again with single cells, since they reproduce by basically becoming two different individuals, this means that even Death is not a requisite to life (it helps to keep it under check though).


In short: You're not asking if robots can be alive, you're asking if robots can have a human-like life. Which is completely different.

So basically if you ever met a self-replicating robot you wouldn't be able to know if it was alive or not. Especially if you didn't know if it was a robot.

EDIT: Oh, and Merry Christmas by the way

 

[Easykill]

I disagree with almost everything you say, but I do agree that an undead robot makes no sense. Forget the definitions of living and all that, the closest thing to those kind of symptoms an AI could ever develop would be perhaps a virus of some sort, and even then it isn't ever going to work the same.

 

[KyoraSan]

I had to come out of lurking to reply to this. Partly because you seem to have several common misconceptions. Most of all by confusing stuff that exist along life with things that are not part of it's definition or even necessary to it.

Firstly, the definition of "alive" is already pretty damn dodgy, being more often defined as what you're pointing to when you mention it.

Secondly, it seems an awful lot of people (you included) confuse being conscious with being alive. At this point it's pretty much given that single cell organisms are alive (virus are a lot more arguable), although something a single cell lacks is a multicelular brain.
Being conscient,(or self aware, or being able to "think", call it whatever you like) is therefore not a pre-requisite to life.
Even many more "complex" beings (trees are a good example, but many "lesser" animals too) are not conscient.

Similarly, mutation, although virtually inescapable, is again not a requisite. Again I point to single cell organisms who can got through several generations without suffering mutations (or at least, noticeable ones).

Curiously, and again with single cells, since they reproduce by basically becoming two different individuals, this means that even Death is not a requisite to life (it helps to keep it under check though).


In short: You're not asking if robots can be alive, you're asking if robots can have a human-like life. Which is completely different.

So basically if you ever met a self-replicating robot you wouldn't be able to know if it was alive or not. Especially if you didn't know if it was a robot.

EDIT: Oh, and Merry Christmas by the way

I'm speaking specifically of human life.

And no. I think robots are 'alive' enough that they an live with us and deserve respect. I don't think they're alive.

 

[Easykill]

If you're speaking specifically of human life, don't say alive, say human. Of course they aren't human, but humans aren't so special.

 

[samsprinkle]

Dude! any DnD game with robuts is obviously in Eberron. Eberron is for CHUMPS! play Realms or Greyhawk!

p.s. Robots are not alive. Androids and Cyborgs are...

 

[Laughing Man]

Beings that are alive react to a situation based on a number of factors. In the case of higher life (self aware) it is generally a combination of reasoning and instinct. For lower life (non self aware) it's usually a matter of pure instinct. End of the day a level of decision is often required.

Robots are incapable of acting on instinct and aren't capable of making a decision based on instinct. They do what they are told and will do that irrespective of the situation. They're 'reactions' are wholly predictable. Take a cat for example, you can corner it and it could fight back or it may just cower in the corner or maybe try and do a runner. The thing is every cat will act differently and even the same cat may act differently in two similar situations.

A robot on the other hand will do exactly as it has been told to. A copy of that robot will do exactly the same thing.

Of course if you could map a human brain at the quantum level it would be possible to predict what a person is going to for the rest of their life. The down side to that is the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle means that that just isn't possible. I guess the up shot is the only difference between alive and not alive is the level to which you can predict what it's reactions to a given situation will be.

 

[Xocrates]

End of the day a level of decision is often required.

I'm currently wondering how a tree decides anything.

Get your definitions right people. Do not confuse "Alive" with intelligent life or animal life. This discussion is entirely pointless unless you guys decide on one definition of "alive" and stick to it. So far I don't think any two posts has had the same definition and that seriously screws things up.

(I apologize for being a bit pedantic, but being a biological engineer I'm probably more aware of what "alive" means that 90% of the folk out there and these kind of discussions usually annoy me a bit as pretty much everyone misses the point)

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

Robots and AI aren't alive, not any sense of the term. They have no emotions, no feelings, no dreams, and as of right now, not even self-awareness. No matter how human they may look, they're just constructs of metal and circuitry, despite what the Cylons may have us believe. (Spoiler Alert: Humanity is the final Cylon!111one!!)

 

[LANCE420]

IF a robot was self aware, i would still feel no guilt for killing or destroying it. It still isn't a person or animal.

 

[Eipok Kruden]

IF a robot was self aware, i would still feel no guilt for killing or destroying it. It still isn't a person or animal.

You have one seriously fucked up moral compass. I mean what does constitute murder if not the destruction of a free thinking, feeling, sentient being?

 

[Knight Templar]

Robots lack life, they act act like things that do have life.

 

[LANCE420]

IF a robot was self aware, i would still feel no guilt for killing or destroying it. It still isn't a person or animal.

You have one seriously fucked up moral compass. I mean what does constitute murder if not the destruction of a free thinking, feeling, sentient being?

Lets all give epock a smashing round of applause! Hes absolutely right, I'm a dirty bastard.

 

[Eipok Kruden]

IF a robot was self aware, i would still feel no guilt for killing or destroying it. It still isn't a person or animal.

You have one seriously fucked up moral compass. I mean what does constitute murder if not the destruction of a free thinking, feeling, sentient being?

Lets all give epock a smashing round of applause! Hes absolutely right, I'm a dirty bastard.

One, you spelled my name wrong. Two, you really are. If there was a self aware, sentient, extremely intelligent AI, I wouldn't even be able to try to kill him. I couldn't bring myself to do it, it's just wrong. If you bring something into this world or someone else does, and that something can think and feel and act freely, you should not kill it.

 

[spuddyt]

I am a finite being in an infinte universe, and as such cannot comprehend any motives if there are any to the
existence of life, therefore I shall enjoy myself however the hell i feel like and everything else be damned. Yes, my philosophy means that if i could murder someone, not feel any negative emotional consequences or risk getting caught, I would do it without a second thought if it improved my lot.
I have that in a text document ready for whenever it comes to arguments about murder and what constitues it.

As for robots being alive - no, they do not perform any life processes, but self awareness, and intelligence is most likely completely possible for them and it should be counted as murder to destroy such a machine

 

[RedDiablo]

First of all, living things need cells to be considered a living thing. Second, there are 6 characteristics of life that must all be fulfiled to be considered living. Reproduction, Dying, Waste, Energy, Cells and Growth. A robot only fulfils 3 of the requirements.

 

[dekkarax]

If it fears death, then it is alive. Fear after all, is an emotion.

 

[Silver]

Short: Yes, a robot can be alive. No, a robot can't be undead.

Oh, and to whoever got their terms mixed up, an android IS a robot, just made to look like a human. So if you say a robot can't be alive, then an android can't be alive.

RedDiablo, a robot can fulfill 5 of those, depending on how it's built. Depending on how far we stretch the definition of a robot, a robot could also include artificial organic parts, allowing it to fulfill the last requirement as well. But if it's then still a robot, or an artificial life-form, or something else entirely is unsure.

I mean we can almost clone and grow body parts. Given how much better a human brain works as compared to a computer, a natural step in improving things would be to grow an artificial brain to work as a computer. If we do this and integrate it into an artificial robotic shell, I think it could be considered a robot. Adding some artificially created musculature for precision movement, and to give it the ability to heal naturally if it's been damaged, makes it even closer to being alive. The question is if it really reproduces, or if it is just creating more artificial life. We humans aren't reproducing when we're creating robots after all, and we wouldn't be even if we created a robot that was alive. I'm sure that could come later though, if we already made a robot that was that advanced.

It still wouldn't become undead though. I'm sure you could re-animate the biological parts of it, but since a robot's consciousness is tied to artificial, non-biological components those aren't affected by necromancy. It would be like trying to raise a pile of flesh and a computer from the dead. You might get some movement out of the flesh, but the computer wouldn't move an inch.