OK, from this I gather that your statement that you're asserting an ontological distinction, a distinction in the mode of being, you're merely expressing opinion, not evidence of any sort. — noAxioms

I see it more as a matter of facts which you don’t recognize.

Sure, the machine probably follows machine instructions (assuming physics isn't violated anywhere), which are arguably an algorithm, but then a human does likewise, (assuming physics isn't violated anywhere), which is also arguably an algorithm. — noAxioms

Physics is violated only if you assume it is algorithmic. I disagree with this assumption. I believe that our own existence is 'proof' that physical laws allow non-algorithmic processes (as to why I believe that our cognition isn't algorithmic I refer to some of my previous posts).

BTW, I want to thank you for the discussion. It helped to clarify a lot of my own position. I didn't think that my denial of our cognition as being totally algorithmic is so important for me. What you also say in respose to @javra about the 'hedonic aspect' of consciousness would perhaps make sense if you assume that everything about us is algorithmic.

As I stated above, I do not think that sentient AI is logically impossible (or, at least, I have not enough information to make such a statement). But IMO we have not yet reached that level.

That opens a whole can of worms about identity. The same arguments apply to humans. Typically, the pragmatic answer is 'yes'. Identity seems to be a pragmatic idea, with no metaphysical basis behind it. — noAxioms

Again, I have to disagree here. We seem to be sufficiently 'differentiated' to be distinct entities. Again, clearly, if all our actions and cognitions were algorithmic what you are saying here would make perfect sense. After all, if all processes are algorithmic it seems to me that the only entity that there is in the universe is the whole universe itself. All other 'subsystems' have at best a pragmatic identity. Ultimately, however, they are only useful fictions.

You need to expand on this. I don't know what you mean by it. — noAxioms

I meant that 'interpretation-free QM' doesn't give a precise definiton of what a measurement is. It is a purely pragmatic theory.

I don't know. It seems to me life is processes, not properties. Our planet has various amounts of various elements, so that's what the laws of physics had to work with. But can't there be life on other planets that have different mixtures of different elements? I imagine there can be. I think different elements, different processes, different systems, can accomplish the work of life. — Patterner

I don't think that a 'process view' denies what I said. Note, however, that processes in order to be intelligible must have some properties, some structure. Otherwise knowledge is simply impossible.

In a 'process ontology', what I said perhaps would be modified as 'there is a potency for life-processes in non-living processes' or something like that.

supposedly anything can be possessed. From lifeforms to children's toys (e.g., Chucky), and I don't see why not toasters as well (this in purely speculative theory but not in practice, akin to BIVs, solipsism, and such) — javra

Purely speculative maybe, but they're relevant in an important way sometimes. I do keep such ideas in mind. BiV is a form of solipsism.
Some external vitality (you've not been very detailed about it) seems to have no reason to interact only with living things like a bacterium, a human finger cell, or perhaps a virus. Apparently, it cannot interact with anything artificial. I can't think of any sort of reason why something separately fundamental would have that restriction.

intents, and the intentioning they entail, are teleological, and not cause and effect.

You don't know that, but you say it like you do. I'm a programmer, and I know the ease with which intent can be implemented with simple deterministic primitives. Sure, for a designed thing, the intent is mostly that of the designer, but that doesn't invalidate it as being intent with physical implementation.

There's a massive difference between [cause/effect and intent] (e.g., the intent is always contemporaneous to the effects produced in attempting to fulfill it - whereas a cause is always prior to its effect).

The effects produced in attempting to fulfill it are not the cause of the intent.

What you do you mean "manufacture a human from non-living parts"?

Like 3D print one or something. Made, not grown, but indistinguishable from a grown one.

How then would it in any way be human?

That's for you, the created being, and for society to decide. A new convention is required because right now there's no pragmatic need for it.

Or are you thinking along the lines of fictions such as of the bionic man or robocop?

Naw, my mother is one of those. She can't swim anymore since she's so dense with metal that she sinks straight to the bottom. They don't tell you that in the pre-op consultation.

To the question of whether it experiences pain: I don't know. Intent?: As described by Thompson, probably so. — J

Thompson seemed to make conclusions based on behavior. The cell shies away or otherwise reacts to badness, and differently to fertile pastures so to speak. By that standard, the car is conscious because it also reacts positively and negatively to its environment.

I don't know that a car isn't conscious, but for me the possibility is extremely unlikely.

Probably because we're using different definitions. There are several terms bandied about that lack such concreteness, including 'living, intent, [it is like to be], and (not yet mentioned, but implies) free will'. People claiming each of these things rarely define them in certain terms.

I find being alive utterly irrelevant to any non-begging definition of consciousness. But that's me.

about as fruitful as a debate among 18th century physicists about what time is.

Good analogy, since there's definitely not any agreement about that. The word is used in so many different ways, even in the physics community.

If reproduction is part of the definition of life, then worker bees and mules are not alive. Neither is my mother, as she's is 83. — Patterner

A mother has reproduced. The definition does not require something to continue to do so. The mule cannot reproduce, but mule cells can, so the mule is not alive, but it is composed of living thing. Hmm...
Not shooting you down. Just throwing in my thoughts. New definition: A thing is alive if the 6 year old thinks it is. Bad choice, because they anthropomorphize a Teddy Ruxpin if it's animated enough.

She says many consider Darwinian evolution to be the defining feature of life.

Plenty of nonliving things evolve via natural selection. Religions come to mind. They reproduce, and are pruned via natural selection. Mutations are frequent, but most result in negative viability.

In which case no individual is living, since only populations can evolve.

Easy enough to rework the wording to fix that problem. A living thing simply needs to be a member of an evolving population. What about computer viruses? Problem there is most mutations are not natural.

"An automobile, for example, can be said to eat, metabolize, excrete, breathe, move, and be responsive to external stimuli. And a visitor from another planet, judging from the enormous numbers of automobiles on the Earth and the way in which cities and landscapes have been designed for the special benefit of motorcars, might wellbelieve that automobiles are not only alive but are the dominant life form on the planet". — Carl Sagan
Similarly humans, which are arguably inert without that immaterial driver, but the alien might decide they're the dominant life for instead of simply the vehicles for said dominant forms.

fire is certainly alive — javra

That's always a good test for any definition of life. How does fire rate? Are you sure it isn't alive? It certainly has agency and will, but it lacks deliberate intent just like termites.

You more specifically mean certain reactions of organic chemicals, namely those which result in metabolism - or at least I so assume. — javra

Google says:
Metabolism refers to all the chemical reactions that occur within an organism to maintain life.

That might be circular.
...

And not all life uses cellular respiration. — Patterner

I was also going to point out that circularity.
Not all life metabolizes. Viruses for example, but some deny that a virus is alive.

Mind you, I personally don't place any importance on life, in the context of this topic. So while I find the question intriguing, I question its relevance. The discussion does belong here because there are those that very much do think it relevant.

My overriding question is:. Can there be life without chemical reactions? — Patterner

I don't see how, but there can't even be rocks without chemical reactions, so that's hardly a test for life.

Your question -- which reduces to "Why is biology necessary for consciousness?" -- is indeed the big one. If and when that is answered, we'll know a lot more about what consciousness is. (Or, if biology isn't necessary, also a lot more!) — J

:up:

I have to assume we could make a program that duplicates itself, but does so imperfectly. — Patterner

They have these. Some are viruses or simply mutations of user interfaces such as phishing scams. On the other hand, they've simulated little universes with non-biological 'creatures' that have genes which mutate. Put them into a hostile environment and see what evolves. Turns out that the creatures get pretty clever getting around the hostilities, one of which was a sort of a spiney shell (Mario Kart reference) that always killed the most fit species of each generation.

Physics is violated only if you assume it is algorithmic. I disagree with this assumption. — boundless

Barring a blatant example of a system that isn't, I stand by my assumption. Argument from incredulity (not understanding how something complex does what it does) is not an example.

I mean, some parts of physics is known to be phenomenally random (unpredictable). But that's still algorithmic if the probabilities are known, and I know of no natural system that leverages any kind of randomness.

Good discussion anyway! — J

BTW, I want to thank you for the discussion. — boundless

Wow, two in one go. Thank you all. It may not seem like it, but these discussions do influence my thinking/position and cause me to question thin reasoning.

I didn't think that my denial of our cognition as being totally algorithmic is so important for me. — boundless

That's something I look for in my thinking. X is important, so I will rationalize why X must be. I had to go through that one, finally realizing that the will being deterministically algorithmic (is that redundant?) is actually a very desirable thing, which is why all decision making artifacts use components with deterministic behavior that minimizes any randomness or chaos.

Other examples of X are two of the deepest questions I've come to terms with: Why is there something and not nothing? Why am I me?
Answers to both those questions are super important to me, and the answers rationalized until I realized that both make assumptions that are actually not important and warrant questioning. The first question was pretty easy to figure out, but the second one took years.

As I stated above, I do not think that sentient AI is logically impossible (or, at least, I have not enough information to make such a statement). But IMO we have not yet reached that level.

I can grant that. Sentience is not an on/off thing, but a scale. It certainly hasn't reached a very high level yet, but it seems very much to have surpassed that of bacteria.

Identity seems to be a pragmatic idea, with no metaphysical basis behind it. — noAxioms
Again, I have to disagree here.

You suggest that if I fix my door (reattach a spring that fell loose, or worse, replace the spring), then it's a different door. OK, but this goes on all the time with people. You get a mosquito bite, a hole which is shortly repaired and blood which is replenished in a minute. Are you not the person you were 10 minutes ago? I have some pretty good arguments to say you're not, but not because of the mosquito bite.

We seem to be sufficiently 'differentiated' to be distinct entities.

Being a distinct entity is different than the entity maintaining any kind of identity over time.
You seem to suggest that the identity somehow is a function of biological processes not being algorithmic. Not sure how that follows.

I meant that 'interpretation-free QM' doesn't give a precise definiton of what a measurement is. It is a purely pragmatic theory.

But I gave a definition that QM theory uses. Yes, it's pragmatic, which doesn't say what the measurement metaphysically IS. Perhaps that's what you're saying. No theory does that. It's not what theories are for.

I see it as a matter of fact which you don’t recognize. — Wayfarer

Perhaps because I don't see anything as a matter of fact. I call that closed mindedness. So I have instead mere opinions, and yes, ones that don't correspond with your 'facts'.