mway wrote:
Consider this.

You build a car that can drive on its own, as per the current successful DARPA rally entries. Do any of these cars have a mind? Most people would argue that they do not. They would argue that the car is filled with different computer processors, operating on input environmental data in such a way that the output data succesfully navigates the terrain based on many different factors. They would argue that the cars "software" does not contain emotions, experience and does not learn.

Now whilst the complexity is definately not on par with a human mind, I would argue the complete opposite. In order for an autonomous car to navigate successfully it firstly must do what all human minds do as a basis for their existence, form a model of the environment. In other words, to some degree, these cars are essentially learning in an identical manner to a human being. I would then argue, what are emotions? Are they not simply the driving force behind our choices? I will eat the apple because I "feel" hungry. I will hurt that person because I "feel" angry. If you carefully disect these sentences, you will find that I is a requirement of emotional description, and yet animals also with a brain, and no I, exhibit the same reactional function to their environment. Why does an ant eat? Is it because it is hungry, or is it because it's brain is reacting to chemical sensors indicating a requirement for fuel?

So in conclusion, I am stating that a successful DARPA Rally autonomous vehicle does have a mind that is on par with many species in the animal kingdom, the only thing missing being the "I".

Does this make these vehicles "alive"? Are they not in a symbiotic relationship with human beings?

Now simplify.....What about a toaster?

ragus wrote:
evadra wrote



It's obvious that the wire is angry about this because it becomes red. When it's very angry it burns the toast to punish you.

What is "alive" in a biological sense?

evadra wrote:


I don't know much about DARPA but I did get the idea. I don't think it would take much to build a car to be able to go around the course on its own.

Alive in a biological sense would be some thing that has Movement, Reproduction, Sensitivity, Nutrition, Excretion, Respiration and Growth.

Alive in a phsycological sense would be sometihng that has conciousness.

An ant is deffinately alive in a biological sense, and I wouldn't be suprised if it was in the psycological sense too. The car and the ant would run off certain "programs" the ants being the ones its born with, the cars are the ones that it has been programmed with. But thats all the car can do, it can't learn a new course, an ant could learn lots of new things.

evadra wrote:
Some of your comparisons work. Others do not.

Reproduction - I don't think symbiotic relationships count for reproduction. Reproduction is when two tihngs of the same species come together to form another. The symbiotic relationship you are tihnking of is called building. Sure not ALL ants will end up reproducing, but ants as a species will reproduce ant on ant.

Respiration - You have not quite grasped what respiration is. It is not just the need for air. Respiration is the release of energy from glucose or another organic chemical. The chemical energy in glucose can be used to provide the energy required for growth, repair and movement. A car does not quite do this.

Growth - A car doesn't grow on its own, it is built. And an ant will grow after it has hatched from its egg.

Therefore, I have not described a DARPA car as being biologically alive.

Well is a DARPA car aware of its self? That would be a good plave to start.

I am a bit confused as to why you think a car could be built as per the DARPA concept but not one that could drive through the streets like in the example.