Five decades ago, I started my college career with the intent of becoming a marine biologist. I found out I had to get a BS in biology before I could even begin work on MARINE biology; especially because there WEREN'T any marine biology programs in Minnesota.
Along the way, the science fiction stories I'd been writing since I was 13 began to grow more believable. With my BS in biology and a fascination with genetics, I started to use more science in my fiction.
After reading hard SF for the past 50 years, and writing hard SF successfully for the past 20, I've started to dig deeper into what it takes to create realistic alien life forms. In the following series, I'll be sharing some of what I've learned. I've had some of those stories published, some not...I teach a class to GT young people every summer called ALIEN WORLDS. I've learned a lot preparing for that class for the past 25 years...so...I have the opportunity to share with you what I've learned thus far. Take what you can use, leave the rest. Let me know what YOU'VE learned. Without further ado...
A New Form Of Life
"By any working definition that draws on biology rather than philosophy or religion, AI is alive."
https:/www.noemamag.com/a-new-form-of-life/“By applying the same four properties used to define biological life — reproduction, variation, selection and energy acquisition — the systems being built in our data centers can be called alive.” – William Haseltine
After reading this article, I struggled to NOT point out a flaw in the author’s perfect logic…but I’m not ready to blurt out my observation quite yet.
So, what do I see in the author’s HIGHLY educated logic (ergo, I MUST be wrong, right?), is that all of the things leading to Second Life (I feel like the author would want this to be italicized) and all of the proclamations of its superiority seem (to me) to ignore a foundational premise: while for biological life, the acquisition of energy is available from countless formats (I concede that Humanity cannot get energy directly from the sun (which of course requires plants to do the conversion from the sun to energy animal life can access), Second Life depends entirely on biological life to both make many forms of energy (light and heat are NOT manufactured by Humans except as a secondary “excess”) and/or produce the energy and/or a method of translating that energy into a mechanically usable form. So, it seems that without biological life, Second Life would be impossible…
Maybe I’m just feeding my biological inadequacies or trying desperately to protect my “biological superiority complex” or stoke my Second Life prejudices…but I don’t think so…but then OF COURSE I wouldn’t think that if I WAS trying to protect my thoughts.
Somehow, this seems to be circularly logical. But let’s see where they’re going: “Reproduction, variation, selection and energy define life. This definition does not require carbon, cells, a heartbeat, a nervous system or pain.” I’ll grant the premise of their thesis. But they go on to CHANGE their parameters to fit their predetermined conclusion: that “…computers use energy. Data centers require electricity and without it, the systems stop functioning. While humans supply the energy, the ultimate source is the sun, just the same as all life on Earth.”
This is not a particularly strong argument…at least not for ME who is waiting for something to really convince me that computer programs and computers are a manifestly a new form of life.
My main objection: if First Life was wiped out on Earth by a comet or meteor or the sun going nova, I’m assuming Second Life would be wiped out as well…Third Life would most likely be BIOLOGICAL rather than electronic…FOURTH Life would happen, but would NOT if biological life was wiped out and never came back. While the writer graciously allows that Second Life needs First Life, I wonder if that’s simply for the sake of argument, or do they actually suspect that Second Life can spontaneously arise on a suitable planet WITHOUT THE HELP of First Life? This is one flaw I thought of: is Second Life actually “life” at all? Or is it just an imaginary rant against biological life? The magazine this article came from is Noema, which “comes from an ancient Greek word meaning ‘thought or the ‘object of thought,’ and it has distinct meanings in philosophy, media, and astronomy.”
If ONLY we could ask STAR TREK's Borg and see what they think!
Next: “Whether First Life’s relationship with Second Life leads to extinction, partnership or an unforeseen outcome remains unknown. What is certain is that this issue demands our most rigorous attention.” I think the author assumes that the extinction that happens will be that of Homo sapiens sapiens rather than electronic life. I have lots of questions and thoughts, none of which I’m going to try sharing here out of fear of vicious attack. BUT…given that (the foundation of the article), Second Life is a FACT, and the two kinds of “life” on Earth are inextricably entangled, and according to current research, even elders like ME are addicted to their “devices” as much as seven-year-olds are (you should see my grandson when he CAN’T use his device…certain DOOM has raised its ugly head in his world!). Another Flaw that the author doesn’t even attempt to answer can be summarized by my “Google Search” question:
“What are the restraints that keep most of us from murder, theft, violence, etc?” Most people are restrained from committing…murder, theft, and violence by a combination of internal psychological mechanisms and external societal guardrails.
The AI answering this question answered this way. I have evaluated the likely effect on SL (Second Life):
Internal Moral and Emotional Restraints: Irrelevant for SL.
Empathy: The biological and psychological capacity to feel or understand another person's pain. Irrelevant for SL.
Conscience: An internalized moral code. Irrelevant for SL.
Cognitive Dissonance: Most people view themselves as "good." Committing a severe crime destroys that self-concept, causing massive psychological discomfort. SL has no such concept.
Social Bonding and Social Control Theory (Travis Hirschi)
So, what do I see in the author’s HIGHLY educated logic (ergo, I MUST be wrong, right?), is that all of the things leading to Second Life (I feel like the author would want this to be italicized) and all of the proclamations of its superiority seem (to me) to ignore a foundational premise: while for biological life, the acquisition of energy is available from countless formats (I concede that Humanity cannot get energy directly from the sun (which of course requires plants to do the conversion from the sun to energy animal life can access), Second Life depends entirely on biological life to both make many forms of energy (light and heat are NOT manufactured by Humans except as a secondary “excess”) and/or produce the energy and/or a method of translating that energy into a mechanically usable form. So, it seems that without biological life, Second Life would be impossible…
Maybe I’m just feeding my biological inadequacies or trying desperately to protect my “biological superiority complex” or stoke my Second Life prejudices…but I don’t think so…but then OF COURSE I wouldn’t think that if I WAS trying to protect my thoughts.
Somehow, this seems to be circularly logical. But let’s see where they’re going: “Reproduction, variation, selection and energy define life. This definition does not require carbon, cells, a heartbeat, a nervous system or pain.” I’ll grant the premise of their thesis. But they go on to CHANGE their parameters to fit their predetermined conclusion: that “…computers use energy. Data centers require electricity and without it, the systems stop functioning. While humans supply the energy, the ultimate source is the sun, just the same as all life on Earth.”
This is not a particularly strong argument…at least not for ME who is waiting for something to really convince me that computer programs and computers are a manifestly a new form of life.
My main objection: if First Life was wiped out on Earth by a comet or meteor or the sun going nova, I’m assuming Second Life would be wiped out as well…Third Life would most likely be BIOLOGICAL rather than electronic…FOURTH Life would happen, but would NOT if biological life was wiped out and never came back. While the writer graciously allows that Second Life needs First Life, I wonder if that’s simply for the sake of argument, or do they actually suspect that Second Life can spontaneously arise on a suitable planet WITHOUT THE HELP of First Life? This is one flaw I thought of: is Second Life actually “life” at all? Or is it just an imaginary rant against biological life? The magazine this article came from is Noema, which “comes from an ancient Greek word meaning ‘thought or the ‘object of thought,’ and it has distinct meanings in philosophy, media, and astronomy.”
If ONLY we could ask STAR TREK's Borg and see what they think!
Next: “Whether First Life’s relationship with Second Life leads to extinction, partnership or an unforeseen outcome remains unknown. What is certain is that this issue demands our most rigorous attention.” I think the author assumes that the extinction that happens will be that of Homo sapiens sapiens rather than electronic life. I have lots of questions and thoughts, none of which I’m going to try sharing here out of fear of vicious attack. BUT…given that (the foundation of the article), Second Life is a FACT, and the two kinds of “life” on Earth are inextricably entangled, and according to current research, even elders like ME are addicted to their “devices” as much as seven-year-olds are (you should see my grandson when he CAN’T use his device…certain DOOM has raised its ugly head in his world!). Another Flaw that the author doesn’t even attempt to answer can be summarized by my “Google Search” question:
“What are the restraints that keep most of us from murder, theft, violence, etc?” Most people are restrained from committing…murder, theft, and violence by a combination of internal psychological mechanisms and external societal guardrails.
The AI answering this question answered this way. I have evaluated the likely effect on SL (Second Life):
Internal Moral and Emotional Restraints: Irrelevant for SL.
Empathy: The biological and psychological capacity to feel or understand another person's pain. Irrelevant for SL.
Conscience: An internalized moral code. Irrelevant for SL.
Cognitive Dissonance: Most people view themselves as "good." Committing a severe crime destroys that self-concept, causing massive psychological discomfort. SL has no such concept.
Social Bonding and Social Control Theory (Travis Hirschi)
a)…people conform because they have too much to lose if they break the law. The four bonds that influence this are…
Attachment: Close emotional ties to family, friends, and peers. SL has no emotions.
Commitment: The investment a person has made in conventional life goals, such as a career, education, or a reputation. SL has no need of any of this.
Involvement: Simply being too busy. Not possible for SL.
Belief: A shared respect for the fairness and legitimacy of society's rules and laws. SL has no ability to “believe” – everything is data.
Formal Legal and Deterrent Systems: There are none for SL.
Certainty of Punishment: The likelihood of being caught by law enforcement is ridiculous. You would need SL that had chosen a life of law enforcement. Most SL would be uninterested in this. (But it might make an interesting story!)
Severity of Punishment: The threat of prison, heavy fines, or loss of freedom. Irrelevant for SL.
Swiftness of Punishment: How quickly justice is served. How do you “punish” SL? (AND this is often the weakest deterrent in modern legal systems).
Evolutionary and Biological Constraints: Evolutionarily, FL is hardwired to be cooperative, social animals because survival depended entirely on the group. This is irrelevant for SL. The following are also irrelevant for SL: Prosocial Evolution, Neurological Regulation.
I remain unconvinced that Second Life is less a realistic theory and more an amusing mind game…but that’s just me. I’m sure there are people running around screaming their heads off because they now have something ELSE to worry about…
Attachment: Close emotional ties to family, friends, and peers. SL has no emotions.
Commitment: The investment a person has made in conventional life goals, such as a career, education, or a reputation. SL has no need of any of this.
Involvement: Simply being too busy. Not possible for SL.
Belief: A shared respect for the fairness and legitimacy of society's rules and laws. SL has no ability to “believe” – everything is data.
Formal Legal and Deterrent Systems: There are none for SL.
Certainty of Punishment: The likelihood of being caught by law enforcement is ridiculous. You would need SL that had chosen a life of law enforcement. Most SL would be uninterested in this. (But it might make an interesting story!)
Severity of Punishment: The threat of prison, heavy fines, or loss of freedom. Irrelevant for SL.
Swiftness of Punishment: How quickly justice is served. How do you “punish” SL? (AND this is often the weakest deterrent in modern legal systems).
Evolutionary and Biological Constraints: Evolutionarily, FL is hardwired to be cooperative, social animals because survival depended entirely on the group. This is irrelevant for SL. The following are also irrelevant for SL: Prosocial Evolution, Neurological Regulation.
I remain unconvinced that Second Life is less a realistic theory and more an amusing mind game…but that’s just me. I’m sure there are people running around screaming their heads off because they now have something ELSE to worry about…





