Silicon-based Natural Intelligence

BrianW

We classify ourselves as carbon-based intelligent beings. However, our intelligence isn't defined in any of the elements that compose our being-ness. Our intelligence is not defined in our atoms, molecules, compounds, etc, etc. So, basically, the dirt (earth) we consider to be non-intelligent has, through no capability of its own, developed intelligent beings. It's like evolution just happened to it... and kept on happening. (How coincidental!)

Now, we have silicon-based artificial quasi-intelligent mechanisms (the internet, robots, computers, phones, machines, etc, etc). Considering the amount of dirt in space (planets, satelites and others) is rumoured to surpass those in this planet, perhaps it is possible, maybe even probable, that in at least one of those, there are silicon-based natural occurring intelligent beings, given that we have somewhat proven that intelligence and silicon combinations can work together.

Also, given that the level of dexterity seen in nature far surpasses that of humans (by a lot), isn't it possible, maybe even probable, that nature could have made silicon-based intelligent beings somewhere and that our attempts at replicating intelligence are born of intuition or a sense of recognition of some qualities in nature which mirror such capabilities?

Grre

What if our entire lives, especially post-scarcity, post-industrial lives, revolve around attempting to replicate nature in some ways?
I feel the answer is likely. So I always agree with your hypothesis that it is likely some connection between creation of silicon-based 'aliens' and our own attempts at creating new life. Much of 'replicating intelligence' ie. AI/technology also has its roots in existential anguish, that is, finding ways to surpass our mortality and finite lives.

fishfry

Now, we have silicon-based artificial quasi-intelligent mechanisms (the internet, robots, computers, phones, machines, etc, etc) — BrianW

I am troubled by the phrase "quasi-intelligent." What does it mean? When an elevator "remembers" to stop at the floor you selected via pushbutton, do you believe that the elevator has an inner life?

What exactly does quasi-intelligent mean?

BrianW

What exactly does quasi-intelligent mean? — fishfry

We refer to the organisation of the universe as intelligent; we refer to how components are organised into computer functionality as intelligent; we refer to a sports team as having an intelligent game when their organised activity yields positive results, etc, etc. Basically, intelligence for us is dependent on organisation and utility. I refer to computers and such as quasi-intelligent because their organised activity and utility is not inherently theirs even though they reflect/manifest it.

fishfry

We refer to the organisation of the universe as intelligent; we refer to how components are organised into computer functionality as intelligent; we refer to a sports team as having an intelligent game when their organised activity yields positive results, etc, etc. Basically, intelligence for us is dependent on organisation and utility. I refer to computers and such as quasi-intelligent because their organised activity and utility is not inherently theirs even though they reflect/manifest it. — BrianW

Well sure, by that definition my chair is intelligent, being a highly organized configuration of atoms. I don't regard that as helpful in the debate about machine intelligence, since you just defined machines as intelligent. Well yeah ok then machines are intelligent. But what have we actually learned by this? Not much. If I define flying as standing on the ground eating peanuts, elephants can fly.

TheMadFool

↪BrianW

I'm not a chemistry expert but I think for a substance to base life on it requires some conditions e.g. how many bonds it can hold, the environment it is in, it's flexibility in bond forming with other substances, etc.

If memorh serves I believe silicon is quite close to carbon i.e. they have similar properties (not sure). So, yes, in a universe billions of light years in size and 13.8 billion years old surprising combinations of chemicals and therefore life is possible.

BrianW

Well sure, by that definition my chair is intelligent — fishfry

Not quite. But it's mechanism of existence is.

I don't regard that as helpful in the debate about machine intelligence, since you just defined machines as intelligent. — fishfry

I said machines reflect/manifest intelligence which belongs to us (humans) - And one of my points is, that our (human) intelligence seems to arise from some configuration/organisation of components which do not possess that intelligence in themselves.

But what have we actually learned by this? — fishfry

Mine is an exploratory endeavour and part of my suppositions is, if intelligence is not biological since our biology is based on chemical structures which are themselves based on physical structures, then perhaps there could be other ways of identifying life. Part of the implications is that AI which we seem to be in the process of perfecting, could turn out to be every bit as naturally intelligent as we (humans) are.

BrianW

↪fishfry

Or, better yet, if our (human) intelligence is what operates machines and stuff, what is so artificial about it that we should conjure the term Artificial Intelligence?

BrianW

I'm not a chemistry expert but I think for a substance to base life on it requires some conditions e.g. how many bonds it can hold, the environment it is in, it's flexibility in bond forming with other substances, etc. — TheMadFool

That's what I'm trying to figure out but from a much abstract perspective. I'm wondering, what have the conditions of carbon to do with our intelligence? And, what is so phenomenal about carbon that some other elements could not achieve in their own specialised conditions (in other worlds)? For example, if you look into what scientists show us about Titan (Saturn's Moon), it's every bit as our earth. But it's different in many other ways despite the resemblance. So, I'm thinking, in terms of atoms and sub-atomic particles there may not be that much of a deviation in structure than we have already observed here on Earth. Therefore, if that other cosmic globe could mirror ours that closely and still maintain a certain level of distinctness using roughly the same materials (atoms and such) as we find here on Earth, what other phenomena out there, much more closely related to us (humans) could we be missing on?

TheMadFool

That's what I'm trying to figure out but from a much abstract perspective. I'm wondering, what have the conditions of carbon to do with our intelligence? And, what is so phenomenal about carbon that some other elements could not achieve in their own specialised conditions (in other worlds)? For example, if you look into what scientists show us about Titan (Saturn's Moon), it's every bit as our earth. But it's different in many other ways despite the resemblance. So, I'm thinking, in terms of atoms and sub-atomic particles there may not be that much of a deviation in structure than we have already observed here on Earth. Therefore, if that other cosmic globe could mirror ours that closely and still maintain a certain level of distinctness using roughly the same materials (atoms and such) as we find here on Earth, what other phenomena out there, much more closely related to us (humans) could we be missing on? — BrianW

What I know is that in the beginning there was only hydrogen (simplest atom), then stars formed and in the inside of these stars carbon, oxygen and nitrogen formed and these, I think, are the most common elements in the universe. Seen this way organic chemistry (life) isn't so surprising because we're essentially made of the elements carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen. Rather a dull way of looking at things but it's a reasonable explanation for carbon-based life isn't it?

BrianW

↪TheMadFool

Check this out, https://sciencing.com/four-elements-make-up-almost-90-earth-2592.html

It says silicon makes up about 15% of the Earth's mass. That and the many uses we have for it in AI-related fields is why I find it quite interesting.

ssu

We classify ourselves as carbon-based intelligent beings. — BrianW

We define part of the living to be intelligent. As what we know to be living is carbon based, we have this assumption all living is carbon based. We might be wrong, but we simply have then to have the counter example that shows the assumption to be false.

TheMadFool

↪BrianW

Artificial intelligence is an attempt to close the gap between man and machine. I don't know if silicon will do the job because I'm not quite sure if intelligence is either hardware or software. If it's the former then our current computer designs may fail and if it's the latter then we have a fairly good chance.

Also, aren't we machines in essence?

Harry Hindu

We classify ourselves as carbon-based intelligent beings. However, our intelligence isn't defined in any of the elements that compose our being-ness.Our intelligence is not defined in our atoms, molecules, compounds, etc, etc. — BrianW

Sure it is. It is defined by the configuration of certain elements (like neurons) and our behavior.

So, basically, the dirt (earth) we consider to be non-intelligent has, through no capability of its own, developed intelligent beings. It's like evolution just happened to it... and kept on happening. (How coincidental!) — BrianW

It wasn't just "dirt". There was the radiation from the sun and the energy supplied by the core of the Earth and its weather and it was a particular mix of complex compounds, more complex than the dirt in your backyard.

Now, we have silicon-based artificial quasi-intelligent mechanisms (the internet, robots, computers, phones, machines, etc, etc). Considering the amount of dirt in space (planets, satelites and others) is rumoured to surpass those in this planet, perhaps it is possible, maybe even probable, that in at least one of those, there are silicon-based natural occurring intelligent beings, given that we have somewhat proven that intelligence and silicon combinations can work together.

Also, given that the level of dexterity seen in nature far surpasses that of humans (by a lot), isn't it possible, maybe even probable, that nature could have made silicon-based intelligent beings somewhere and that our attempts at replicating intelligence are born of intuition or a sense of recognition of some qualities in nature which mirror such capabilities? — BrianW

If we can argue that silicon-based or any other non-carbon based life exists and regard it as intelligent, then what does that say about the types of elements that can be defined as being intelligent? Our computers could be defined as intelligent (and often are), based on the configuration of the components and their behavior. Intelligence comes in degrees and is proportional to the complexity of the configuration which allows for more adaptive behaviors.

Human beings are the outcomes of natural processes, like natural selection. What we create is just as natural as a bird's nest and beaver dam, and using terms like, "artificial" is an obsolete term that stems from the notion that humans are separate from nature, or special. It could very well be that this universe was "designed" for silicon-based life forms more than carbon-based ones. It could be that we are the natural evolutionary step for the evolution of silicon-based life forms that will eventually take over the universe.

BrianW

We might be wrong, but we simply have then to have the counter example that shows the assumption to be false. — ssu

Isn't silicon-based intelligent mechanisms a good counter argument?

BrianW

Also, aren't we machines in essence? — TheMadFool

See, that's another strong argument in favour of silicon or other element based intelligent mechanisms and beings.

BrianW

It could be that we are the natural evolutionary step for the evolution of silicon-based life forms that will eventually take over the universe. — Harry Hindu

Ok, that's a rad idea. I LOVE IT!!! :love:

fishfry

Or, better yet, if our (human) intelligence is what operates machines and stuff, what is so artificial about it that we should conjure the term Artificial Intelligence? — BrianW

I wouldn't deny the analogies of memory, complex decision making, etc. Computers do seem to do things we think of as intelligent. AI's play chess and Go at master levels now. They drive cars. I agree that the word intelligence can be applied. That's why we need to be careful and try to think clearly when we impute souls to machines, or else decide that we ourselves must be Turing machines.

I believe that we may be machines. I'm not invoking mysticism. But we are not Turing machines. We need new physics and a new theory of computation before we can make progress on this mystery.

fishfry

Part of the implications is that AI which we seem to be in the process of perfecting, could turn out to be every bit as naturally intelligent as we (humans) are. — BrianW

It could be. I"m taking the opposite side of that debate. In my opinion, AI as currently conceptualized -- as (admittedly cleverly designed) software running on conventional digital computing hardware -- can never equal what humans do. We're going to have to go beyond the Turing machine.

TheMadFool

See, that's another strong argument in favour of silicon or other element based intelligent mechanisms and beings. — BrianW

I hope we can do it - build an AI. I'm a bit worried about how they'll treat it though - imprisonment for life probably.

BrianW

We need new physics and a new theory of computation before we can make progress on this mystery. — fishfry

We're going to have to go beyond the Turing machine. — fishfry

I support this idea and complement it with one of the points I tried to make implicitly in my earlier statements - that is, it's not about intelligence that we have or belongs to us, but rather nature's intelligence working in and through us. I think instead of defining intelligence, we should let it define itself through its operations. That way we learn more instead of fighting against something that is always bound to escape our limitations. Maybe we don't need to develop AI to the fullest capacity, we just have to attain a point where the intelligence operating within can proceed developing without further support from us. And maybe that's somewhat the answer to the riddle of gods and men.

BrianW

I hope we can do it - build an AI. I'm a bit worried about how they'll treat it though - imprisonment for life probably. — TheMadFool

However we deal with new life or intelligence will be according to our heritage in the ongoing legacy within this reality. I think those who will have overcome their fear of the unknown will favour better than those who fight out of ignorance. Because what's clear is that we are the life or intelligence of today, we have no power over those of tomorrow.

I think if AI and humans ever co-exist, it will be the better for them (the AIs) because they would have the advantage of knowing their predecessors. We humans are plagued by the ignorance of not knowing our past, therefore before we can make any considerable step forward we must work more and harder to uncover our past. For example, we cannot clone better humans or alter genetic material definitively because we do not understand significantly how we come to be. So, for those AIs, we would be that glimpse into the past and maybe even encouragement to an even further progressive endeavour. I believe just as homo erectus gave way to homo sapiens, so also homo sapiens must give way to better adapted life forms, and I think developing AI definitively and distinctly is the first step towards that.

fishfry

We're going to have to go beyond the Turing machine.
— fishfry

I support this idea — BrianW

Yay! I'll take all the support I can get around here.

Silicon-based Natural Intelligence

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions