Re: Re: Re: Re: Why self-organization programs cannot be alive
Hi Russell Standish But the robot plants could not grow more robot structure for free nor produce seeds. Or produce beautiful sweet-smelling flowers. If they could produce more robot structure, we ought to use them to produce more manf capabilities (including producing more chips for free). Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-19, 19:26:04 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Why self-organization programs cannot be alive On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 05:39:58AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish Bernard cells are mechanical, not caused by a self as agent but by laws of physics. They may be self-organizing, but there's no self to organize things. Photosynthesis is a life process, not mechanical because it does things no computer program can do, namely turn light into energy, and CO2 in O2. The former can be done with traditional photovoltaic cells made from silicon. As for the latter, there are a variety of ways of doing this mechanically (ie chemical, but not biological). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_photosynthesis for more details. Also suggested was the following: Alternatively, you could heat CO2 over a catalyst of iron doped zeolite and hydrogen to produce water and ethylene. A nonthermal plasma applied to ethylene will generate carbon soot and recover the hydrogen. Electrolysis of water gives back the extra hydrogen and produces oxygen. (Hey! I didn't say it was efficient.) It might be useful to someone on Mars who has endless power in the form of a nuclear reactor and plenty of CO2 but not so much oxygen. (see http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-154820.html) I remember reading a New Scientist article on artificial photosynthesis. It is possible today, although not with the same efficiency as plants. The aim is ultimately produce something far more efficient (plants aren't exactly optimal - as John Clark would say, they are good enough). This requires intelligence, which can't be programmed, Why do you say that? Chloroplasts don't seem particularly intelligent. They produce oxygen in the presence of light and CO2, otherwise metabolise as a normal cell when one or other of these ingredients is missing. since it must be free choice, even if just a wee bit. Even more bizarre - have you evidence of a chloroplast deciding not to produce oxygen when light and CO2 are present, just because it didn't feel like it? Choice is needed because like Maxwell's Demon, it goes against entropy. You mean the second law. No it doesn't, as the light provides plenty of free energy to drive the reaction. Self-organization has neither a self nor intelligence, since it is purely mechanical. Only life has intelligence and self. I can't object to that statement, per se:). Of course, distinguishing between life processes and mechanical processes is a bit dubious. Most scientists think that life _is_ mechanical. Someone who doesn't is the late Robert Rosen - but his arguments are rather difficult to follow, and I don't find myself in 100% agreement with them. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why self-organization programs cannot be alive
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 08:18:16AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish But the robot plants could not grow more robot structure for free nor produce seeds. Or produce beautiful sweet-smelling flowers. If they could produce more robot structure, we ought to use them to produce more manf capabilities (including producing more chips for free). All of which are irrelevant to the stated task of using sunlight to convert carbon dioxide to ocygen. Nvevertheless, self-reproducing robots exist as well, in case you're wondering. Take a look at the rep-rap project. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Why self-organization programs cannot be alive
Hi Russell Standish Bernard cells are mechanical, not caused by a self as agent but by laws of physics. They may be self-organizing, but there's no self to organize things. Photosynthesis is a life process, not mechanical because it does things no computer program can do, namely turn light into energy, and CO2 in O2. This requires intelligence, which can't be programmed, since it must be free choice, even if just a wee bit. Choice is needed because like Maxwell's Demon, it goes against entropy. Self-organization has neither a self nor intelligence, since it is purely mechanical. Only life has intelligence and self. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-18, 17:45:39 Subject: Re: Re: Why self-organization programs cannot be alive On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 01:56:14PM -0400, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish I apologize for using two different concepts of creation of structure from randomness. Its good to clarify these thoughts. Great! There are two types of creation of structure: by life, where there is an agent or self to create things, and by a computer program, where creation is mechanical. Not just a computer program. Physical systems can self-organise in purely mechanical ways too - eg Per Bak's sandpile, or Benard cells. Self-organization is purely mechanical and does not require nor does it have a self. It just uses a computer program written elsewhere. But photosynthesis is by a living cell entity. The organization of light into cell structure is not self-organization, which is purely mechanical. I wouldn't be so sure that photosynthesis isn't a purely mechanical process in your classification. Certainly, it is about as agent-like as some computer programs. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/18/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-17, 17:39:38 Subject: Re: Why self-organization programs cannot be alive On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 06:54:31AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish Creating structure out of a random environment requires intelligence, the ability to make choices on one's own. Self-organization does not have that capacity, it merely follows a computer program. So self-organization programs cannot be alive, having no intelligence and no free will. In short, they have no self. Instead, they are slaved to a computer programmer. This is confusing. How do you explain how self-organisation creates structure from initially disordered states? In the first sentence, you claim this requires intelligence. In the second sentence, you claim self-organisation is not. This is a contradiction. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email
Re: Re: Re: Why self-organization programs cannot be alive
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 05:39:58AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish Bernard cells are mechanical, not caused by a self as agent but by laws of physics. They may be self-organizing, but there's no self to organize things. Photosynthesis is a life process, not mechanical because it does things no computer program can do, namely turn light into energy, and CO2 in O2. The former can be done with traditional photovoltaic cells made from silicon. As for the latter, there are a variety of ways of doing this mechanically (ie chemical, but not biological). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_photosynthesis for more details. Also suggested was the following: Alternatively, you could heat CO2 over a catalyst of iron doped zeolite and hydrogen to produce water and ethylene. A nonthermal plasma applied to ethylene will generate carbon soot and recover the hydrogen. Electrolysis of water gives back the extra hydrogen and produces oxygen. (Hey! I didn't say it was efficient.) It might be useful to someone on Mars who has endless power in the form of a nuclear reactor and plenty of CO2 but not so much oxygen. (see http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-154820.html) I remember reading a New Scientist article on artificial photosynthesis. It is possible today, although not with the same efficiency as plants. The aim is ultimately produce something far more efficient (plants aren't exactly optimal - as John Clark would say, they are good enough). This requires intelligence, which can't be programmed, Why do you say that? Chloroplasts don't seem particularly intelligent. They produce oxygen in the presence of light and CO2, otherwise metabolise as a normal cell when one or other of these ingredients is missing. since it must be free choice, even if just a wee bit. Even more bizarre - have you evidence of a chloroplast deciding not to produce oxygen when light and CO2 are present, just because it didn't feel like it? Choice is needed because like Maxwell's Demon, it goes against entropy. You mean the second law. No it doesn't, as the light provides plenty of free energy to drive the reaction. Self-organization has neither a self nor intelligence, since it is purely mechanical. Only life has intelligence and self. I can't object to that statement, per se:). Of course, distinguishing between life processes and mechanical processes is a bit dubious. Most scientists think that life _is_ mechanical. Someone who doesn't is the late Robert Rosen - but his arguments are rather difficult to follow, and I don't find myself in 100% agreement with them. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
