News Origin Of Life

Goo? Robot goo?

Spread the love

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG Origin of life from space goo?


Popular Mechanics has the scoop:

Why Superintelligent Machines Are Probably the Dominant Lifeforms in the Universe

It’s a robot’s universe. We’re just living in it.

University of Connecticut philosophy professor Susan Schneider certainly thinks so. In her new paper “Alien Minds,” she proposes that by the time civilizations are able to communicate by radio, they’re a few short steps away from developing artificial intelligence. One they reached that level of advancement, they may have opted to upgrade their biology to something that’s a biomechanical hybrid or something entirely synthetic. There could be a whole mess of Borg out there, in other words. More.

Possibly, the superintelligent robots that dominate the universe (mess of Borg) work with goo. Most robots prefer to work neat.

Learn the truth! Get all your news from naturalist crackpots and pop science.

A quick primer on the actual state of origin of life research here. Fun, but also factual.

9 Replies to “Goo? Robot goo?

  1. 1
    Mapou says:

    All of these outrageous extrapolations were derived from a single statistical sample: earth. Amazing.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Use to be that the teachers were the ones that would have to discipline, and reign in, the overactive imagination of students so the imagination of students could be harnessed more effectively for science. Now the teachers appear, in many instances, to be leading the parade into unrestrained overactive imagination that is useless for science.

  3. 3
    humbled says:

    Oh dear, these theories get more insane by the day. Are people seriously so unaware and herd like that they believe this hogwash?

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    A few notes as to why ‘the borg’ is pure fantasy: A computer has no free will so as to create information, nor does a computer have consciousness so as to take context into consideration:

    Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test – Douglas S. Robertson
    Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information.

    Alan Turing & Kurt Godel – Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition – video

    “Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine”
    Kurt Gödel

    In fact, Robert Marks, William Dembski, and team, have proven that a computer never creates information in the much over-hyped evolutionary algorithms, but a computer only shuffles around, and ‘mines’, preexisting information:

    LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW – William Dembski – Robert Marks – Pg. 13
    Excerpt: (Computer) Simulations such as Dawkins’s WEASEL, Adami’s AVIDA, Ray’s Tierra, and Schneider’s ev appear to support Darwinian evolution, but only for lack of clear accounting practices that track the information smuggled into them.,,, Information does not magically materialize. It can be created by intelligence or it can be shunted around by natural forces. But natural forces, and Darwinian processes in particular, do not create information. Active information enables us to see why this is the case.

    On Algorithmic Specified Complexity by Robert J. Marks II – video
    paraphrase (All Evolutionary Algorithms have failed to generate truly novel information including ‘unexpected, and interesting, emergent behaviors’) – Robert Marks

    Here are all the main publications at Robert Marks’s evoinfo lab:

    Another primary reason that computers cannot create information, besides the lack of free will, is that computers have no conscious awareness so as to be able to take context into consideration:

    What Is a Mind? More Hype from Big Data – Erik J. Larson – May 6, 2014
    Excerpt: In 1979, University of Pittsburgh philosopher John Haugeland wrote an interesting article in the Journal of Philosophy, “Understanding Natural Language,” about Artificial Intelligence. At that time, philosophy and AI were still paired, if uncomfortably. Haugeland’s article is one of my all time favorite expositions of the deep mystery of how we interpret language. He gave a number of examples of sentences and longer narratives that, because of ambiguities at the lexical (word) level, he said required “holistic interpretation.” That is, the ambiguities weren’t resolvable except by taking a broader context into account. The words by themselves weren’t enough.
    Well, I took the old 1979 examples Haugeland claimed were difficult for MT, and submitted them to Google Translate, as an informal “test” to see if his claims were still valid today.,,,
    ,,,Translation must account for context, so the fact that Google Translate generates the same phrase in radically different contexts is simply Haugeland’s point about machine translation made afresh, in 2014.
    Erik J. Larson – Founder and CEO of a software company in Austin, Texas

    Yes, “We’ve Been Wrong About Robots Before,” and We Still Are – Erik J. Larson – November 12, 2014
    Excerpt: Interestingly, where brute computation and big data fail is in surprisingly routine situations that give humans no difficulty at all. Take this statement, originally from computer scientist Hector Levesque (it also appears in Nicholas Carr’s 2014 book about the dangers of automation, The Glass Cage):
    “The large ball crashed right through the table because it was made of Styrofoam. What was made of Styrofoam, the large ball or the table?”
    Watson would not perform well in answering this question, nor would Deep Blue. In fact there are no extant AI systems that have a shot at getting the right answer here, because it requires a tiny slice of knowledge about the actual world. Not “data” about word frequencies in languages or GPS coordinates or probability scoring of next-best chess moves or canned questions to canned answers in Jeopardy. It requires what AI researches call “world knowledge” or “common sense knowledge.”,,
    Having real knowledge about the world and bringing it to bear on our everyday cognitive problems is the hallmark of human intelligence, but it’s a mystery to AI scientists, and has been for decades.,,,
    Given that minds produce language, and that there are effectively infinite things we can say and talk about and do with language, our robots will seem very, very stupid about commonsense things for a very long time. Maybe forever.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Since a computer has no free will so as to create information, nor a consciousness so as to take context into consideration, then one simple way for a person to defeat the Turing test is to tell, or to create, a joke that requires a subtle twist of context to understand:,,,
    Such as this joke:
    Turing Test Extra Credit – Convince The Examiner That He’s The Computer – cartoon

    “(a computer) lacks the ability to distinguish between language and meta-language.,,,
    As known, jokes are difficult to understand and even more difficult to invent, given their subtle semantic traps and their complex linguistic squirms. The judge can reliably tell the human (from the computer)”
    Per niwrad

    For Artificial Intelligence, Humor Is a Bridge Too Far – November 13, 2014
    Excerpt: The article reminded me of an exercise in one of my first programming books that made me aware of the limits of computers and AI. I’ve forgotten the author of the book, but the problem was something like the following: “Write a program that takes in a stream of characters that represent a joke, reads the input and decides whether it’s funny or not.”
    It’s a perfect illustration of Erik’s statement, “Interestingly, where brute computation and big data fail is in surprisingly routine situations that give humans no difficulty at all.” Even when my grandchildren were very young I marveled at how they grasped the humor of a joke, even a subtle one.

    Artificial Intelligence debunked in one short paragraph:

    Your Computer Doesn’t Know Anything – Michael Egnor – January 23, 2015
    Excerpt: Your computer doesn’t know a binary string from a ham sandwich. Your math book doesn’t know algebra. Your Rolodex doesn’t know your cousin’s address. Your watch doesn’t know what time it is. Your car doesn’t know where you’re driving. Your television doesn’t know who won the football game last night. Your cell phone doesn’t know what you said to your girlfriend this morning.,,,

    Of supplemental note: All the computers in the world combined would not match the complexity of a single human brain:

    Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth – November 2010
    Excerpt: They found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: …One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor–with both memory-storage and information-processing elements–than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.

    Nor are computers anywhere near mimicking the integrated functional complexity inherent in a single brain:

    “Complexity Brake” Defies Evolution – August 8, 2012
    Excerpt: Consider a neuronal synapse — the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse — about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years…, even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.

    Verse and Music:

    1 Corinthians 2:9
    However, as it is written: “What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived” — the things God has prepared for those who love him–

    Danny Gokey – More Than You Think I Am (Lyric Video)

  6. 6
    Me_Think says:

    What did you expect from a Philosopher?

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    “What did you expect from a Philosopher?”

    Or a scientist:

    Renowned scientist Stephen Hawking thinks computers could be a threat and argues that humans should be genetically engineered in order to compete with the phenomenal growth of artificial intelligence. In a recent interview he even said, “The danger is real that they could develop intelligence and take over the world.” The idea of a computer takeover may sound absurd, but you never know, we could be in the Matrix right now.

    or a billionaire founder of Microsoft:

    Bill Gates was asked “how much of an existential threat do you think machine superintelligence will be?” Gates said:

    I am in the camp that is concerned about super intelligence. First the machines will do a lot of jobs for us and not be super intelligent. That should be positive if we manage it well. A few decades after that though the intelligence is strong enough to be a concern. I agree with Elon Musk and some others on this and don’t understand why some people are not concerned.,,,
    Gates has aligned his opinion of AI superintelligence threats to that of Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk. Hawking said, “The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.” Musk has stated many of his opinions about AI, including that “With artificial intelligence we are summoning the demon” and that AI could potentially be “more dangerous than nukes.”


    Can a Computer Think? – Michael Egnor – March 31, 2011
    Excerpt: The Turing test isn’t a test of a computer. Computers can’t take tests, because computers can’t think. The Turing test is a test of us. If a computer “passes” it, we fail it. We fail because of our hubris, a delusion that seems to be something original in us. The Turing test is a test of whether human beings have succumbed to the astonishingly naive hubris that we can create souls.,,, It’s such irony that the first personal computer was an Apple.

    Verse and Music:

    Psalm 115:2-7
    Why do the nations say,
    “Where is their God?”
    Our God is in heaven;
    he does whatever pleases him.
    But their idols are silver and gold,
    made by human hands.
    They have mouths, but cannot speak,
    eyes, but cannot see.
    They have ears, but cannot hear,
    noses, but cannot smell.
    They have hands, but cannot feel,,,

    Red – Feed The Machine

  8. 8
    Me_Think says:

    BA77 @ 7
    Heh. You didn’t read the article? Neither the scientist nor the billionaire claim robots are dominant lifeforms in universe. Unlike the Philosopher,they apparently know what definition of life is, and both are talking of future AI originating from mankind’s efforts – not existing ‘Lifeforms’ which are more intelligent than us!

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Other than trying to defend an absurd position, your point is what exactly?

    Material processes will never create information above and beyond what is put into them initially by a ‘mind’

    Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test – Douglas S. Robertson
    Excerpt: The basic problem concerning the relation between AIT (Algorithmic Information Theory) and free will can be stated succinctly: Since the theorems of mathematics cannot contain more information than is contained in the axioms used to derive those theorems, it follows that no formal operation in mathematics (and equivalently, no operation performed by a computer) can create new information.

    The Limits Of Reason – Gregory Chaitin – 2006
    Excerpt: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.,,,

    Kurt Gödel – Incompleteness Theorem – video

    “Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine”
    Kurt Gödel

    To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt – the paradigm takes precedence!”
    Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis

Leave a Reply