Smatter

[monoRAIL]

Some Surface Details spoilers below

Hegemonizing swarms have been mentioned in a few of the Culture novels, but I think Surface Details is the first time they've been described in detail, and the first time the actual components of the swarm were called "smatter".

Was anyone else disappointed by their description? It seemed to me they were nothing more than machines, designed to adapt according to any agression they encounter, and employing equiv-tech responses to the Culture vessels, which suggests they were designed by a Tech 8 or so society.

I'd always imagined heg swarms to be more organic - like an algae that can survive vacuum and which immediately transforms all matter it encounters into a similar structure. If anything, it should have evolved completely original defence/agression systems, nothing like lasers or engines. Anything capable of creating a laser, or an engine isn't a heg swarm, it's a sentient life-form in my opinion.

Interesting forum by the way - I only found this place after recently finishing Surface Details, and googling the last word :-) - I had forgotten who it was!

[charismatic megafauna]

All right folks, if we're going to ask questions about the novels let's get the titles right. It's Surface Detail, not Surface Details. And recently someone called Look to Windward, Look to Windwards. End of minor rant.

As to the question monoRAIL, it's a good one. The form of a hegemonic swarm can be either mechanical, biological, or some combination of the two. Hegemonic swarm is a reference to a mass grouping (sentient or not) that tries to change all it encounters into replicas of itself (the Borg from Star Trek are a hegemonic swarm). While a hegemonic swarm might take the form you mention, the smatter outbreak in SD was mechanical.

The hegemonic swarm elements in Surface Detail are probably no more than Tech 6 or so. Culture agents in modified modules have little trouble destroying the smatter with only minor danger to themselves. And sentient or not (don't recall that being addressed in the book), they're a hegemonic swarm because they attempt to replicate all they come into contact with into the swarm.

[Conscious Bob]

As to the question monoRAIL, it's a good one. The form of a hegemonic swarm can be either mechanical, biological, or some combination of the two. Hegemonic swarm is a reference to a mass grouping (sentient or not) that tries to change all it encounters into replicas of itself (the Borg from Star Trek are a hegemonic swarm). While a hegemonic swarm might take the form you mention, the smatter outbreak in SD was mechanical.

Yeah, I like that. I daresay there are potentially as many types of swarm as there are alien civs.

Smatter is new and so is the Culture's pest control service, Restoria.

[monoRAIL]

And sentient or not (don't recall that being addressed in the book), they're a hegemonic swarm because they attempt to replicate all they come into contact with into the swarm.

I guess it depends on how you define a heg swarm. If it's anything that uses matter it encounters to replicate itself then all life qualifies as a heg swarm, and this was briefly touched upon in the novel. However the smatter in the novel didn't replicate itself - it changed with each iteration. Also, it displayed tech which it couldn't possibly have designed in the short time available to it, and was therefore programmed-in by an intelligent designer. I think the smatter in Surface Detail (singular) was nothing more than a physical form of modern computer viruses, written by someone to be a pest and to counter likely aggressors.

Still the section describing the human/module combat interface was fascinating. Would make a great video game.

[Old Vig]

While I'm sure that Heg Swarms could come in many forms, this particular smatter was a decoy created by one of the involved. The cover story was that it was an outbreak from a real swarm that had been mostly wiped out in the past. The premise is that software (virus/trojan) or nanoscale tech elements of the swarm survive in the manufactories and are attempting to rebuild the full swarm, rather like the self-repair mechanisms of the damaged drone in Excession. If that were true then the swarm could plausibly be gaining better capabilities as the repair progresses. As it is that's not what is happening, it's all a decoy.

[Champagne Socialist]

used by, not created.

[Conscious Bob]

I'd always imagined heg swarms to be more organic - like an algae that can survive vacuum and which immediately transforms all matter it encounters into a similar structure. If anything, it should have evolved completely original defence/agression systems, nothing like lasers or engines. Anything capable of creating a laser, or an engine isn't a heg swarm, it's a sentient life-form in my opinion.

One significant Culture vessel employed safeguards to ensure it's fleet of slaved AI's didn't run off to multiply, these AI's inhabited ships possessing far more devastating weapons than mere lasers and also possessing significant engines.

Restoria (A Culture division that specialises in smatter) was fooled into thinking they were cleaning up a normal heg swarm which suggests to me that what smatter is far exceeds your relatively narrow parameters.

[monoRAIL]

what smatter is far exceeds your relatively narrow parameters.

I think the Culture would have to put very narrow parameters on what smatter is to allow themselves to destroy it without any guilt. After all, the only difference between smatter and DNA is the time it takes to reproduce. And the only difference between a planet infested by smatter and a petri-dish full of bacteria is the scale. Give the petri-dish a few billion years to evolve and you have the potential for sentient life. Smatter should surely evolve into something sentient in a very short time, given the right resources. I think Restoria should be cultivating smatter rather than eliminating it.

[Conscious Bob]

I think the Culture would have to put very narrow parameters on what smatter is to allow themselves to destroy it without any guilt. After all, the only difference between smatter and DNA is the time it takes to reproduce. And the only difference between a planet infested by smatter and a petri-dish full of bacteria is the scale. Give the petri-dish a few billion years to evolve and you have the potential for sentient life. Smatter should surely evolve into something sentient in a very short time, given the right resources. I think Restoria should be cultivating smatter rather than eliminating it.

Smatter is a swarm of Von Neumann machines, these machines can be very simple and straightforward or highly complex and sophisticated. They are defined not by what they are but by what they do which is self-replication and exponential expansion.

Smatter is therefore a risk to existing civs.

You won't just find this argument in science fiction, you'll find it in scientific debate too.

Frank Tipler (making another appearance here) used the absence of Von Neumann probes as a resolution to the Fermi Paradox.

Fermi Paradox - If aliens are around where's the evidence?

Tipler advocated that given the age of our galaxy a reasonable rate of Von Neumann reproduction should have resulted in detectable numbers of Von Neumann probes. As we haven't found any probes then there can't be any alien progenitors.

Carl Sagan responded to Tipler, this was called imaginatively enough, The Sagan Response.

Sagan advocated that aliens would actively destroy Von Neumann probes because of the inherent risks Von Neumann probes pose to alien civs.

Sound familiar...?

This debate took place in the early eighties.

[Alistair]

If you want nasty smatter look at the Greenfly in Alastair Reynolds books Absolution Gap & Galactic North. Viral machines gobbling up a whole galaxy!

[monoRAIL]

Sagan advocated that aliens would actively destroy Von Neumann probes because of the inherent risks Von Neumann probes pose to alien civs.

Sagan's response is great :-)
It reminds me of conspiracy theory supporters. Some people say conspiracy theories (like the '9-11 was an inside-job' conspiracy) are false because there is no evidence to support them. Believers in the theory say the lack of evidence proves the conspiracy is true and that the conspirators are very thorough.

Sagan's response is basically the same idea and I find it not a very satisfying explaination.

One could also argue that the fact that we HAVE encountered Von Neumann machines on earth (DNA) proves the existance of alien life - if you believe the panspermia theory of the origin of life. SETI is a fascinating topic, and one almost completely based on assumptions and a complete absense of evidence. I think our radio astronomy search for signs of life is very unlikely to succeed. The JWST's infra-red spectrometer is more likely to find signs of primitive alien life IMHO.

Alistair - thanks for that tip. Before Surface Detail I read Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space. I enjoyed it, and particularly liked the fact that he tries to stay within currently known physical laws (ie no FTL travel, no anti-gravity) but I thought his handling of combat and action sequences wasn't as good as Banks'. I'll be picking up some more of his books soon I think.

[Conscious Bob]

Sagan's response is great :-)
It reminds me of conspiracy theory supporters. Some people say conspiracy theories (like the '9-11 was an inside-job' conspiracy) are false because there is no evidence to support them. Believers in the theory say the lack of evidence proves the conspiracy is true and that the conspirators are very thorough.

Sagan's response is basically the same idea and I find it not a very satisfying explaination.

That's because Carl Sagan knew what Von Neumann Machines are and you don't.



One could also argue that the fact that we HAVE encountered Von Neumann machines on earth (DNA) proves the existance of alien life - if you believe the panspermia theory of the origin of life. SETI is a fascinating topic, and one almost completely based on assumptions and a complete absense of evidence. I think our radio astronomy search for signs of life is very unlikely to succeed. The JWST's infra-red spectrometer is more likely to find signs of primitive alien life IMHO.

One could argue that point if one didn't know that the major difference between life and Von Neumann Machines is that Von Neumann Machines are artificial...

[monoRAIL]

I always find it amusing when internet forum denizens act as though they had access to information that others do not. As though we still lived in the era before wikipedia :-)

[Conscious Bob]

I always find it amusing when internet forum denizens act as though they had access to information that others do not. As though we still lived in the era before wikipedia :-)

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and having access to information is not the same as understanding it.

Here's something for you to ponder. The Culture itself be considered a swarm of Von Neumann Machines, what is the difference between the Culture and Smatter...?

[monoRAIL]

A good question. I think the difference between the Culture and Smatter is that the Culture holds back. When it encounters a new civilization the Culture allows it to develop on its own (within reason, SC usually steps in to stop any massacres or other uncivilized behavior) whereas Smatter would not hold back. Smatter just replicates without concern for maintaining diversity.

[Old Vig]

They are defined not by what they are but by what they do which is self-replication and exponential expansion.


One could argue that point if one didn't know that the major difference between life and Von Neumann Machines is that Von Neumann Machines are artificial...
Well make your mind up ;-)
You have no actual proof that life arose spontaneously (and no, that doesn't mean I subscribe to Intelligent Design), the origin of life is still a theory until proved.

As for Sagan, well the whole point of Hegemonising Swarms is that they're not simple replicators, they set out to control everything, and actually bring the fight.

[monoRAIL]

Perhaps hackers will get access to Craig Venter's gene authoring technology and we'll be lucky enough to witness the first hegemonising swarms within our lifetime :-)

Old Vig - I think Intelligent Design is a perfectly reasonable theory for the origin of life on Earth, assuming the intelligent designer was an evolved organism and not a supernatural, immortal wizard.

[Conscious Bob]

A good question. I think the difference between the Culture and Smatter is that the Culture holds back. When it encounters a new civilization the Culture allows it to develop on its own (within reason, SC usually steps in to stop any massacres or other uncivilized behavior) whereas Smatter would not hold back. Smatter just replicates without concern for maintaining diversity.

In other words... Smatter is defined by what it does, full circle.

Civs wipe Smatter out because they don't wish to be overwhelmed waiting for the stuff to develop into something interesting.


Well make your mind up ;-)

I'll do that now shall I, in summary for the hard of reading...

Von Neumann Machines can form Smatter they can also form the Culture, Check my previous posts with your specs on this time.



You have no actual proof that life arose spontaneously (and no, that doesn't mean I subscribe to Intelligent Design), the origin of life is still a theory until proved.

That's true but there's still sufficient differences between 'natural life' and theoretical Von Neumann Machines to treat them as separate.



As for Sagan, well the whole point of Hegemonising Swarms is that they're not simple replicators, they set out to control everything, and actually bring the fight.

Again I know this..., the Sagan Response to Tipler was to keep the alien debate alive by providing a reason why we haven't detected any Von Neumann Machines yet. Tipler and Sagan had this debate well before the first Culture novel was published.


Old Vig - I think Intelligent Design is a perfectly reasonable theory for the origin of life on Earth, assuming the intelligent designer was an evolved organism and not a supernatural, immortal wizard.

Eh? Perhaps Earth was seeded but that's unlikely. Life certainly has been left alone to go it's own sweet way since, evolution proves this. Intelligent Design is nonsense advocated by religious cranks trying to shoehorn science into a religious book.

Incidently, Frank Tipler was also an advocate of intelligent design.

[monoRAIL]

Von Neumann Machines can form Smatter they can also form the Culture

One could argue that point if one didn't know that the major difference between life and Von Neumann Machines is that Von Neumann Machines are artificial...

[Conscious Bob]

One could argue that point if one didn't know that the major difference between life and Von Neumann Machines is that Von Neumann Machines are artificial...

I thought we agreed that smatter and the Culture both had Von Neumann Machine characteristics.

Clarify your point.

[Champagne Socialist]

I do find it entertaining when new joiners seek to elevate us with their inherently superior intellect, wit and wisdom... then have to learn the lesson of Bob.
Actually, Mono has been less annoying than most (1 hint, avoid sarcasm, you will be ripped to shreds. CB has kept his claws well and truly sheathed on this one).

I was always drawn to the likeness between The Culture and hegemonising swarms. Something Horza mentions in CP (in relation as to why he supports the Idirans over The Culture)


"Horza knew the Idirans would never subdue all the less-developed civilisations in the galaxy; their dreamed-of day of judgement would never come. But the very certainty of that ultimate defeat made the Idirans safe, made them normal, made them part of the general life of the galaxy..."
"The Culture was different. Horza could see no end to its policy of continual and escalating interference. It could easily grow for ever, because it was not governed by natural limitations. Like a rogue cell, a cancer with no 'off' switch in its genetic composition, the Culture would go on expanding for as long as it was allowed to. It would not stop of its own accord, so it had to be stopped."


ALthough it's clear from more recent books that The Culture tries very hard to not be a hegemonising swarm.

Von Neumann machines are surely one particular form of hegemonising swarm. replicating themselves, consuming all else in the process.
Life isn't because it is governed by natural laws. We ourselves are symbiotic with our ecosystem, we tip the ecosystem to far and we'll make ourselves extinct before we've had time to process all raw matter into more of us.
Genes can be, if you believe the selfish gene theory (which I don't, cooperation has proven far more important than competition) and so can Memes, look at how philosophies and religions spread around the world (not just kitteh's). But not cancers, which kill the host that fuels their growth before they've consumed it's entirety. Whereas ideas can consume an entire society, because they do not destroy the fuel source for their transmission.
Lets not overlook the possible functional mechanic of organic Von Neumann machines. Viruses certainly... perhaps even something as complex as plant life could classify, moulds for example.

just musing.

[charismatic megafauna]

Talk about muddying the waters. Now the Culture is a type of hegemonic swarm (maybe, or maybe not). I think my original definition (slightly altered upon reflection) still holds: hegemonic swarm is a reference to a mass grouping (sentient or not) that tries to assimilate all it encounters. A hegemonic swarm does not negotiate or attempt dialogue (except perhaps to say "resistance is futile"). It does not have morals or ethics (at least as we think of them), its only purpose is endlessly creating replicas of itself out of whatever materials it encounters.

For the purpose of argument, let's also consider, what I will call, the conquering swarm and the proselytizing swarm. A conquering swarm utilizes force to control others for various reasons (economic, theological, etc). The Idirans are a theological example. The Affronters probably fall into this category partly for economic reasons and partly because they have a genetic imperative that makes them enjoy tormenting (or maybe torturing is a better term) other living entities. A proselytizing swarm tries to convince others, preferably via nonviolent methods, that its ways are superior and thus should be adopted. The Culture has this tendency, but is nowhere near resolute enough to be considered a true proselytizing swarm.

[Conscious Bob]

Talk about muddying the waters. Now the Culture is a type of hegemonic swarm (maybe, or maybe not). I think my original definition (slightly altered upon reflection) still holds: hegemonic swarm is a reference to a mass grouping (sentient or not) that tries to assimilate all it encounters. A hegemonic swarm does not negotiate or attempt dialogue (except perhaps to say "resistance is futile"). It does not have morals or ethics (at least as we think of them), its only purpose is endlessly creating replicas of itself out of whatever materials it encounters.

I liked your explanation, I've said that before.

The Culture is not a Hegemonic Swarm and I have never said it was.

The Culture's non-biological component can be considered to be Von Neumann Machines, they are artificial and are able to self-replicate. One ship can restart the Culture from scratch, you'll find that in Surface Detail.

Smatter can also be considered to be Von Neumann Machines, smatter is also artificial and can self-replicate.

I highlighted the technical similarities between smatter and the Culture in order to point out where the important differences lie in their behaviours.



For the purpose of argument, let's also consider, what I will call, the conquering swarm and the proselytizing swarm. A conquering swarm utilizes force to control others for various reasons (economic, theological, etc). The Idirans are a theological example. The Affronters probably fall into this category partly for economic reasons and partly because they have a genetic imperative that makes them enjoy tormenting (or maybe torturing is a better term) other living entities. A proselytizing swarm tries to convince others, preferably via nonviolent methods, that its ways are superior and thus should be adopted. The Culture has this tendency, but is nowhere near resolute enough to be considered a true proselytizing swarm.

Conquering, yeah I can see the point of that, the word swarm though...

There's no mention of rapid reproduction being a characteristic of either the Idirans or The Affront. This is important because the word is applied to smatter. Swarming is what smatter does.

Heg swarms it would appear are a by-product of the Involved.

[charismatic megafauna]

My remarks were directed toward those who suggest the Culture might be some kind of hegemonic swarm, not towards you CB. This seems to me a ludicrous analogy.

As to my use of the term swarm, I thought it might be a convenient way to distinguish between a hegemonic swarm and conquerors and proselytizers, but in hindsight, probably not. Then again when the Idirans were sweeping through vast areas of space killing billions, they sure must have seemed like a swarm. The same might be said of the Nazis in Russia 1941/42 and the Red Army in Germany in 1944. If you happened to be one of those unlucky enough to be in their way, I'm sure it seemed like a swarm destroying everything in its path.

As to how hegemonic swarms originate, it is likely some Involved has a hand in it somewhere. Although I can also imagine a type of biological hegemonic swarm evolving from natural processes gone awry. Whatever their origin, once released into the "field" any swarm would be difficult, if not impossible, to control. Sort of like biological or chemical warfare can prove as dangerous to the protagonist as to the intended victim.

[von hitchofen]

the Culture, as its name suggests, is regarded by many characters as a Cultural hegemonic swarm, one that seeks a kind of tasteful, politically correct cultural homogeneity throughout the galaxy, rather a seething mass of wildly different alien civilisations...see how the Culture pulled the talons out of the Azadian Empire in TPOG, and would like to do the the same to the Affront in Excession

however Smatter presents a more immediate threat to all civs, as it would eventually consume the material of the home galaxy in order to solely produce copies of itself, unless it is tamed or destroyed by involved civilisations.

the Culture regard Smatter as the misguided, unimaginative use of high technology, even sentient AIs, to explore the galaxy...the biomechanical equivalent of spammers using all the bandwidth


Probably only humans find the idea of Von Neumann machines frightening, because we half-understand - and even partially relate to - the obsessiveness of the ethos such constructs embody. An AI would think the idea mad, ludicrous and - perhaps most damning of all - boring.

This is not to say that the odd Von-Neumann-machine event doesn't crop up in the galaxy every now and again (probably by accident rather than design), but something so rampantly monomaniac is unlikely to last long pitched against beings possessed of a more rounded wit, and which really only want to alter the Von Neumann machine's software a bit and make friends... A FEW NOTES ON THE CULTURE by Iain M Banks

[Conscious Bob]

the Culture, as its name suggests, is regarded by many characters as a Cultural hegemonic swarm, one that seeks a kind of tasteful, politically correct cultural homogeneity throughout the galaxy, rather a seething mass of wildly different alien civilisations

Not to confuse third party descriptions with actual definitions I would add.

The Culture themselves use the term hegemonic swarm and they take care to prevent their own tech generating them.

[von hitchofen]

Not to confuse third party descriptions with actual definitions I would add.


this appears to be the case, especially among characters like Horsa, and even Zakalwe - everything is open to interpretation in fiction, there is no Word of God, not even TMH's :)

[charismatic megafauna]

What characters say or think and what is actually happening are often widely divergent. To say the Culture is a hegemonic swarm (of any variety) not only dissociates the term from its true meaning (all to common in today's hyperbolic verbiage, where even the slightest hint of change often becomes a "revolution"). However, in the light of eight Culture novels (and one novella) this modus operandi is diametrically opposed with all we know about what the Culture is and how it operates. There is a vast difference in trying to sway others to your point of view versus trying to dominate, control, and assimilate them against their will. The Culture may be considered a proselytizing group, but never a hegemonic swarm.

[monoRAIL]

Great discussion. If I can distill it all down to one idea so far it seems to be this:

Anything capable of replicating itself rapidly (even life) counts as a hegemonic swarm, until it becomes sentient and decides to curtail its own growth and tries to co-exist rather than assimilate. The only really threatening heg swarms though are the high-tech ones consisting of smatter which seem to have been made by miscreants in involved cultures, so those are the ones Restoria deals with.

[Conscious Bob]

Great discussion. If I can distill it all down to one idea so far it seems to be this:

Anything capable of replicating itself rapidly (even life) counts as a hegemonic swarm, until it becomes sentient and decides to curtail its own growth and tries to co-exist rather than assimilate. The only really threatening heg swarms though are the high-tech ones consisting of smatter which seem to have been made by miscreants in involved cultures, so those are the ones Restoria deals with.

No.

Hegemonic swarms are Von Neumann Machines, Von Neumann Machines are artificial. Life therefore does not count as a hegemonic swarm.

Hegemonic swarms can evolve but that doesn't necessarily stop them swarming.

[monoRAIL]

Congratulations Bob, you have now managed to contradict yourself twice in the same thread. Normally when one plays devil's advocate one sticks to the same side, but I rather like your version of simply disagreeing with every statement presented, even your own.


Smatter is a swarm of Von Neumann machines (defining smatter by what it is)


They are defined not by what they are but by what they do (contradicting the above)


The Culture itself be (sic) considered a swarm of Von Neumann Machines (considering life to be a swarm of VN Machines)


Von Neumann Machines are artificial. Life therefore does not count as a hegemonic swarm. (contradicting the above)

Perhaps you'd like to summarize your views with a further contradiction?

[Conscious Bob]

Congratulations Bob, you have now managed to contradict yourself twice in the same thread. Normally when one plays devil's advocate one sticks to the same side, but I rather like your version of simply disagreeing with every statement presented, even your own.

(defining smatter by what it is)

Smatter is a swarm of Von Neumann Machines, Von Neumann Machines as well as smatter form much more besides, that's why the Culture is so careful not to accidently cause swarms as well as deal with ones that arise.



(contradicting the above)

Hegemonic Swarm - Von Neumann Machines,
Culture - Von Neumann Machines.

One is a swarm the other is a civilisation, they are defined by their actions.



(considering life to be a swarm of VN Machines)

That's an extract of a question I put to you, your use of it here is disingenuous.



(contradicting the above)

Life is natural, Von Neumann machines are artificial.



Perhaps you'd like to summarize your views with a further contradiction?

As I've yet to contradict myself I'm going to have problems supplying you with a further contradiction...

[monoRAIL]

OK that's fantastic - you've progressed to contradicting yourself within the same post!
In the above post you said "Culture - Von Neumann Machines". I'm assuming you mean that dash to indicate some kind of equivilence (more usually indicated by and equals sign btw) and not subtraction.
You then said "Life is natural, Von Neumann machines are artificial".

If the second statement is true, then the first statement must mean that the Culture is artificial. There is no indication in any of the novels that this is true so I'm labelling this yet another contradiction.
So Contrary Bob, I now challenge you to contradict yourself within a single sentence! And you're not allowed use "this statement is false", that's too easy. It has to be yet more nonsense vaguely relating to this discussion.

[Conscious Bob]

OK that's fantastic - you've progressed to contradicting yourself within the same post!
In the above post you said "Culture - Von Neumann Machines". I'm assuming you mean that dash to indicate some kind of equivilence (more usually indicated by and equals sign btw) and not subtraction.
You then said "Life is natural, Von Neumann machines are artificial".

Oh dear, I used a dash instead of an equals, perhaps now I must bow to your unquestioned intellectual superiority, hang on though...



If the second statement is true, then the first statement must mean that the Culture is artificial. There is no indication in any of the novels that this is true so I'm labelling this yet another contradiction.
So Contrary Bob, I now challenge you to contradict yourself within a single sentence! And you're not allowed use "this statement is false", that's too easy. It has to be yet more nonsense vaguely relating to this discussion.

I've got news for you... the Culture is artificial.

The Culture are the Minds, they build it, they represent it, they make the decisions, they fight the wars, humans no more represent the Culture than fleas represent the dog.

Unfortunately I must decline your challenge, I don't do contradictions...

[monoRAIL]

Ok there were no contradictions in that one. You failed (declined?) the challenge.
But I don't think it's accurate to say the culture is artificial. Only the machines are artificial. The humans and other organics are naturally evolved. So the Culture is a combination of natural organisms and artificial machines. Even if the Minds run the show, the organics still form a significant part of the Culture. Now the NR in Surface Detail are much closer to being all artificial, since their organic component is about to sublime. The Iln from Matter are fully artificial. The Culture is not yet artificial, not until all the organics sublime or die.

[Conscious Bob]

Ok there were no contradictions in that one. You failed (declined?) the challenge.
But I don't think it's accurate to say the culture is artificial. Only the machines are artificial. The humans and other organics are naturally evolved. So the Culture is a combination of natural organisms and artificial machines. Even if the Minds run the show, the organics still form a significant part of the Culture. Now the NR in Surface Detail are much closer to being all artificial, since their organic component is about to sublime. The Iln from Matter are fully artificial. The Culture is not yet artificial, not until all the organics sublime or die.

I'm happy to fail that challenge monoTHOUGHT.

It's perfectly accurate to say the Minds are the Culture, they're the Ships and the Hubs. Everything else within it is along for the ride

The NR, they're artificial too, their biological component jumped back into the woods.

That's level eight for you.

[charismatic megafauna]

Now, now fellow forum members play nice before the moderator kicks you both out of the sandbox.

I would like to point out that organic citizens of the Culture have been so extensively modified (drug glands, disease immunity, life spans, non-human anatomical structures, etc, etc) they can hardly be considered to be naturally evolved creatures any longer. The original base form was naturally evolved, but the present form (the human Culture citizen) is an artificially evolved human (sometimes) construct.

[Conscious Bob]

Now, now fellow forum members play nice before the moderator kicks you both out of the sandbox.

Sorry, this is you isn't it charismatic? The above is just a touch out of character.



I would like to point out that organic citizens of the Culture have been so extensively modified (drug glands, disease immunity, life spans, non-human anatomical structures, etc, etc) they can hardly be considered to be naturally evolved creatures any longer. The original base form was naturally evolved, but the present form (the human Culture citizen) is an artificially evolved human (sometimes) construct.

That's true and if you count the nanotech then there's a considerable amount of Von Neumann Machinery inside them too.

Nevertheless Culture humanoids are directly descended from human basic stock and as such can still claim to be natural. I daresay the Culture itself could still claim to be a natural civ during the time the humanoids were in charge.

[charismatic megafauna]

It's actually a selfish gesture on my part CB. I find the present discussion interesting and don't want it terminated because you and mR start being nasty to each other (as we two have done several times in the past). Feel free to go to a thread I'm not interested in and be as nasty to each other as you want.

[von hitchofen]

What's smatter you, Hey!
Gotta no respect ;)

with no arithmetical idea of how fast Smatter reproduces, it seems difficult to discern between one hegemonising force in the galaxy and another...maybe the Culture would be regarded as a heg swarm were it not for its own civilisational impulses, and the existent of equally powerful [the Affront] and more powerful [the Morthanveld] to hold it in check and prevent it obtaining complete hegemony over the material galaxy

a civilisation will have a philosophical and ideological outlook, and material objectives it wishes to obtain [even the Inhibitors in Alistair Reynolds' novs, have an objective of a sort]

Smatter merely consumes and reproduces, consumes and reproduces, consumes and reproduces implacably, until everything is the same as it, and nothing is left...or until it is altered or destroyed

or so seems to me, at least

[Champagne Socialist]

nothing to worry about after all.
http://xkcd.com/865/
http://xkcd.com/865/

[Conscious Bob]

No Von Neumann Machines, no Rings, no Dyson Spheres, s**t Enrico it's not looking good, alone... so alone...

[charismatic megafauna]

von hitchofen, like the "consumes and reproduces implacably" analogy. A hegemonic swarm doesn't engage in negotiations, or trade, or talk, it just "consumes and reproduces implacably, until everything is the same as it, and nothing is left...or until it is altered or destroyed."

However, I must take you to task for claiming the Affront are the Culture's equals and the Morthanveld are more powerful. As Excession makes clear the Affront are nowhere near the Cultures equals. That's why they get involved in a plot to dupe mothballed Culture warships into joining with them to capture the Excession (which the Affront believes is a weapon that will give them superiority over the Culture). As to the Morthanveld, they are much older (I think a half million years was mentioned) and more numerous, but both are high level involveds and of approximate technological equivalence. In the area of AI capability and autonomy they seemingly lag behind the Culture (that's why the Iln entity easily subverts the Morthanveld's guard ship and its drones in the core).

[von hitchofen]

However, I must take you to task for claiming the Affront are the Culture's equals and the Morthanveld are more powerful

whether they are "more powerful" or not - which is always debateable in a fictional universe :D - the Culture find it much harder to bend them to their will than they did the Azadians.

Short of an "inelegant" outright conquest of their galactic sphere of influence, the Culture are at a loss to what to do with them, as were the Padressahl, the civilisation through which the Culture contacted them, who were also more advanced than the Affront/Issorilians, indeed they eventually sublimed

A Smatter outbreak, even one on the scale of the one in "Surface Detail", is far easier to counterract than a civilisation as cruel, and as widespread as the Affront evidently is

the Affront, their society "a never-ending, self-perpetuating holocaust of pain and misery" seem to be a metaphor for humanity at its worst

Perhaps their very abhorrent nature is that which is worth preserving, as it helps Culture feel morally superior in comparison.

[eburacum45]

The distinction between artificial and natural is a fairly arbitrary one. Bees, ants and termites build hives, birds build nests, rabbits burrow; these are different in scale from the vast constructs of the Culture and the Morthanveld, but are the same thing in many ways. The hives and burrows act as constructed extensions of the animals' bodies, and allow them to live in conditions which would otherwise be inhospitable.

Even the artificial minds created by advanced civilisations are a result of the natural behaviour of those species, so any developments in AI and high technology that occur as a result can also be regarded as natural. AI, Minds and backups act as constructed extensions of the mental civilisation of the species concerned, and allow the civilisation to develop in ways which would otherwise be impossible.

In a similar way, any lifeform capable of reproduction and growth can be regarded as an organic von Neumann replicating device. In fact the only examples of self-replicating entities known by humanity at this moment in time are organic, unless you are prepared to consider larger systems such as cultures or organisations as entities, or allow the limited self-replication of software entities within computer programs to count.

[Conscious Bob]

In a similar way, any lifeform capable of reproduction and growth can be regarded as an organic von Neumann replicating device. In fact the only examples of self-replicating entities known by humanity at this moment in time are organic, unless you are prepared to consider larger systems such as cultures or organisations as entities, or allow the limited self-replication of software entities within computer programs to count.

The scientific definition of a von Neumann machine is clear. Apply the term to life and it becomes meaningless. This was monoRAIL's error, now yours.

We have machine-like characteristics, there are many thousands of structures that make up the human body, engineers, biologists and surgeons throughout history have developed an appreciation of them. None of these structures happened by design, we are part of an evolutionary process.

Machines are by definition creations, their purposes and abilities are defined by design. A von Neumann machine has it's replication abilities bestowed on it by design.

A woman has a baby, she is a reproductive organism.

A robot builds a duplicate following program instructions, it is a von Neumann machine.

[eburacum45]

The scientific definition of a von Neumann machine is clear.The only element in any description of a von Neumann machine that differs from ordinary life is that it is 'artificial'. But 'artificial' entities arise from the natural behaviour of naturally evolved beings, as I pointed out in the first part of my post. I take this to show that the distinction between artificial and natural is arbitrary, and so natural life can be regarded as being in the same category as 'artificial' life.

There is good reason to expect that the first fully self-replicating artificial entities created by humans will be artificial microbes; in fact Craig Ventner has made some progress in that direction already. Or is something not regarded as 'artificial' if it is organic?

[Conscious Bob]

The only element in any description of a von Neumann machine that differs from ordinary life is that it is 'artificial'. But 'artificial' entities arise from the natural behaviour of naturally evolved beings, as I pointed out in the first part of my post. I take this to show that the distinction between artificial and natural is arbitrary, and so natural life can be regarded as being in the same category as 'artificial' life.

The first part of your post was wrong then and it's wrong now as the arbitrary reasoning you use is entirely yours, with no scientific basis.

Putting the von Neumann component to one side for now, how would you describe a machine?

[eburacum45]

Interestingly, the Wikipedia definition is 'a device that uses energy to perform some activity'. This definition is independent of whether the device is biological or artificial. Perhaps the concept of artificiality itself needs closer examination. If birds' nests and insect hives are to be regarded as natural, then so too are computers and atom bombs. But if human-made technology must be considered artificial, then artifacts made by other animals should also be considered artificial. Technology arises from the behaviour of intelligent beings, so can't be considered unnatural.

[Conscious Bob]

Interestingly, the Wikipedia definition is 'a device that uses energy to perform some activity'. This definition is independent of whether the device is biological or artificial. Perhaps the concept of artificiality itself needs closer examination. If birds' nests and insect hives are to be regarded as natural, then so too are computers and atom bombs. But if human-made technology must be considered artificial, then artifacts made by other animals should also be considered artificial. Technology arises from the behaviour of intelligent beings, so can't be considered unnatural.

Here was me thinking that people needed to study physics to make nuclear devices, I didn't know scientists built bombs by instinct...

The male scientist that builds the biggest bomb must gets to mate with the female lab assistant with the big t*ts.

Isn't nature wonderful.

[charismatic megafauna]

Let's talk for a moment about words. All words are to some point arbitrary in their distinctions from other other words, but it is this arbitrary difference that renders them valuable. There is a tendency today to devalue the meaning of words (the use of "revolution" to describe even the most tenuous change, comes to mind). If the terms natural and artificial cannot be used to delineate different aspects or processes, then they become essentially useless. I find the distinction useful.

[eburacum45]

Creating cities and atom bombs is what humans do; there is nothing un-natural about it. Indeed these are artificial creations, but they are also the natural products of the behaviour of our species.

In a civilisation like the Culture almost all citizens have some artificial modifications. All human-pattern citizens have been extensively altered to make them healthier and longer-lived, as well as adjusted in many other ways. In this case too the borderlines between the artificial and the natural have been blurred.

A hegemonising swarm could be entirely organic, and entirely artificial at the same time; it would also be the natural result of the behaviour of the species which originally created it.

[charismatic megafauna]

"Creating cities and atom bombs is what humans do, there is nothing un-natural about it." No, human civilization, an artificial, hierarchical construct that started along with the first true cities, gives rise to the cultural institutions and technological processes by which such things can be created. Neither are natural products of the behavior of our species. They are both products for gaining and maintaining the power of a few over the many. For at least a hundred millennia humans managed to live without either.

Natural: existing in or caused by nature, not made or caused by humankind. Artificial: made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally.

[Conscious Bob]

Creating cities and atom bombs is what humans do; there is nothing un-natural about it. Indeed these are artificial creations, but they are also the natural products of the behaviour of our species.

Atom bombs are completely artificial, nothing natural about them. I appreciate you're trying to prove a point about von Neumann machines but now you're getting ridiculous.

Human beings are the only technological species we know, no other animal builds machines. Hives, nests or cities for that matter are not machines.


They are both products for gaining and maintaining the power of a few over the many. For at least a hundred millennia humans managed to live without either.

Little bit of politics there...



Natural: existing in or caused by nature, not made or caused by humankind. Artificial: made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally.

I'll agree with that.

[Coral Beach]

Natural: existing in or caused by nature, not made or caused by humankind. Artificial: made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally.

For practical purposes that is good enough here on Earth, I would say, since humans are the only ones building the things we regard as artificial - and I agree there is a qualitative difference between our constructs and the things animals build, I would not call the latter artificial.

However, this thread is also about alien species, civilizations and machines, and if we limit the artificial to that which is made by humankind, then anything aliens build is not artificial, and I do not think that is useful. Conscious Bob's notion of instinct could come into this - those who make artificial things do not work entirely by instinct, they have some understanding of what they are doing, and they can adjust and improve their artifacts.

(I think the fictional universe of the Warhammer 40,000 tabletop game had at one point a monkey-like species who built complex machines by instinct, which I thought was fun, but the authors never went far with that idea (which was likely ripped off from somewhere else anyway...)).

[eburacum45]

Neither are natural products of the behavior of our species.Curiously city-building, as a behaviour, emerged independently in the Old World and the New World. It seems very likely that citybuilding is a natural, and also likely consequence of natural human behaviour.

Building atom bombs has an element of contingency; if historical events had played out differently, atomic physics may have never been discovered. So building an atom bomb is a natural consequence of human behaviour, but is less likely to occur than citybuilding.

[Conscious Bob]

However, this thread is also about alien species, civilizations and machines, and if we limit the artificial to that which is made by humankind, then anything aliens build is not artificial, and I do not think that is useful. Conscious Bob's notion of instinct could come into this - those who make artificial things do not work entirely by instinct, they have some understanding of what they are doing.

My little aside about instinct was made to illustrate that certain animals don't need to learn in order to build certain structures and these structures can be considered natural as the instructions to build them are hardwired into the genetics.

Charismatic Megafauna's definition stands but obviously can be extended to human equivalent (sentient) alien species.

[Conscious Bob]

Building atom bombs has an element of contingency; if historical events had played out differently, atomic physics may have never been discovered. So building an atom bomb is a natural consequence of human behaviour, but is less likely to occur than citybuilding.

Now you're talking gibberish.

[charismatic megafauna]

My short definitions were simply lifted verbatim from the dictionary. For our purposes let's substitute sentient species for humankind or human beings.

CB, no politics involved, just a statement of fact (refute with examples, if you think I'm wrong).

eburacum45, many institutional and technological innovations have been independently discovered. Doesn't mean they are "natural" human behavior, many human cultures never took such steps, indeed resisted them. Were these humans unable to get in touch with what you describe as "natural behavior?"

I'm afraid CB is right, your need to justify your points has you verging on nonsense. Please do a little anthropological research, rather than just stating opinions about what "human behavior" is or isn't.

[Conscious Bob]

CB, no politics involved, just a statement of fact (refute with examples, if you think I'm wrong).

No argument from me on that score comrade.

[eburacum45]

The curious fact is that human behaviour has resulted in the emergence of civilisation all over the world since the end of the last glaciation. Homo sapiens has existed in its current form for around 200,000 years, but since the last ice age a new form of behaviour has emerged; agriculture and town-dwelling, writing and metalworking have all spontaneously appeared in parts of the world that were not in contact with each other.

This simultaneous emergence is a real puzzle, and without resorting to absurd theories involving ancient civilisations or alien contact, we have to conclude that the potential for civilisation already existed in human behavior before humanity spread from the Old World into the New, and that it is a natural development of normal human characteristics. Personally I think that complex language and complex culture are the most important factors which have predisposed the human species towards the simultaneous emergence of civilisation in widely separated parts of the world

(this may be ironic, since I'm attempting to destroy a little part of the language here by reducing the concept of artificiality to absurdity, but ignore that for the minute).

Human language didn't evolve in order to permit the emergence of civilisation, but that is the end result; the culture of our species has gradually become more and more sophisticated until civilisation has become inevitable. (Culture - that important word that Banks uses to great effect). Culture is a natural human trait, and the specific sort of human culture which we possess leads to civilisation, agriculture and citybuilding.

Culture has also resulted in the scientfic method and the atom bomb, but that is not necessarily inevitable. If a different set of historical events had occured in the past, we might have been born into a civilisation based around superstitious behaviour and tradition, rather than science. But we do have science and (relatively) advanced technology in our current era, and in less than a century we could easily have ubiquitous AI and von Neumann machines (both devices which may or may not be at least partly biological in nature when we finally do develop them).

OK, I admit the concept of artificiality does have validity - it is actually the concept of 'un-naturalness' which I am arguing against. High technology does, and will, create artificial products (many of which include biological components) - but these artifacts are a consequence of human nature, amplified by human cultural acheivements (which are also natural in their own way).

[Conscious Bob]

OK, I admit the concept of artificiality does have validity - it is actually the concept of 'un-naturalness' which I am arguing against. High technology does, and will, create artificial products (many of which include biological components) - but these artifacts are a consequence of human nature, amplified by human cultural acheivements (which are also natural in their own way).

Technology is not natural. Regardless of the motivational forces which brings the machinery of technology about, that which is designed is by definition artificial.

[charismatic megafauna]

The emergence of civilization in the old world took place over a 2000 to 4000 year period (6000 BC to 2000BC). This is hardly a simultaneous occurrence. Once civilization occurs, its ability to use power to conquer its neighbors and their resources allowed rapid expansion and required its neighbors to emulate it or be assimilated. Once the path of civilization has started, there is no turning back outside of total collapse. No collapse has ever destroyed all vestiges of civilization worldwide. Civilization is always hierarchically oriented. It utilizes novel cultural institutions (military, religious, economic) to support and maintain the resource accumulation (agricultural, mineral, energy, human) that are its life blood and form the basis of its power. In no sense is it a naturally evolved product of human nature.

[eburacum45]

I'm grasping towards something that some prehistorians such as Lord Renfrew consider to be an important concept in the development of the human mind.

Renfrew describes something he calls the 'sapient paradox', the long period of human development when humans lived lives which left little trace in the archaeological record was followed after the retreat of the last glaciation by rapidly changing patterns of behaviour that resulted in civilisation. Admittedly all the civilisations within Eurasia had the chance of possible contact, and almost certainly were influenced by one another - but the independent emergence of agriculture and sedentarism in Mesoamerica points towards something much deeper - a predisposition towards complex culture which seems to be truly innate in the modern human character.

Whatever has caused this parallel development of civilisation in the human species, it seems to be as natural as the migration of Canada geese and the expansion of the universe.

[Champagne Socialist]

cities are an emergent artefact (as they are built) of human civilization. Civilization being an emergent property of human society, being an emergent property of, etc.
Isn't life interesting :-)
Everything is chemistry. Complex interactions between increasingly interdependent humanity and available resources.

[Conscious Bob]

Whatever has caused this parallel development of civilisation in the human species, it seems to be as natural as the migration of Canada geese and the expansion of the universe.

That has nothing to do with the difference between natural and artificial.

Your argument fails because you make no allowance for the definition of artificial.

If everything humanity produced was natural there wouldn't be such a word as artificial would there?

I can make a distinction between a natural civilisation and an artificial civilisation even though they may be on the same advanced tech level.

I can also make a distinction between a natural jungle and an artificial garden even though they may be filled with natural plants.

I can also make a distinction between a reproductive organism and a von Neumann machine.

Stop singing and take your fingers out of your ears.

[Conscious Bob]

Civilization is always hierarchically oriented. It utilizes novel cultural institutions (military, religious, economic) to support and maintain the resource accumulation (agricultural, mineral, energy, human) that are its life blood and form the basis of its power. In no sense is it a naturally evolved product of human nature.

A civilisation can be natural even though it's products are artificial. Our civilisations are massive social groups of natural beings with technology.

[eburacum45]

A civilisation can be natural even though it's products are artificial. Very well said; that is the main point of my previous argument. To be honest it is off-topic in a thread about Smatter, though.


Back on topic

I can also make a distinction between a reproductive organism and a von Neumann machine.John von Neumann generally talked about 'automata' rather than machines; he created a (rather over-complicated) mathematical program that operated as a self-replicating entity in a cellular automata environment, something like the replicating entities in Conway's Game of Life. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universal_constructor

He expressed an interest in exploring several forms of self-replicating process, which he listed as (a) the kinematic machine, (b) the cellular machine, (c)the neuron type machine, (d)the continuous machine, and (e)the probabilistic machine, but he died before he could write very much about the last few categories. See http://www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM/2.1.1.htm for more details. Not only was Neumann inspired by biological replication and reproduction, he seems to have been motivated by a desire to reproduce biological growth and development in an abstract form; maybe he was grasping towards a way of allowing computer architecture to grow in an organic way, in the same way that organic brains grow.

The biological inspiration for his work has folded back into the biological sciences in many ways; Freeman Dyson considered that the origin of life may have occurred as the result of a combination of two different natural self-replicating automata systems (cell-like droplets and parasitic DNA). Dawkins classified matter into two categories- self-replicating matter (replicators) and non-replicators. Of course his prime example of a replicator is the Selfish Gene; note that living organisms are just vehicles or facilitators for replicating genes in this view. Dawkins makes no destinction between living and non-living replicators, or between natural and unnatural ones - they are all just replicators.

Smatter itself would need to construct vehicles for itself to travel from location to location, especially between locations in space (where cosmic radiation could damage an unprotected replicator). Or alternately it could infect some other replicator's vehicle (like a human body) and sneak across space using them as a carrier. Hopefully the advanced immune systems the Culture use would prevent this from happening too often.

[Conscious Bob]

Very well said; that is the main point of my previous argument. To be honest it is off-topic in a thread about Smatter, though.

Now that's strange you see from this:



In a similar way, any lifeform capable of reproduction and growth can be regarded as an organic von Neumann replicating device. In fact the only examples of self-replicating entities known by humanity at this moment in time are organic, unless you are prepared to consider larger systems such as cultures or organisations as entities, or allow the limited self-replication of software entities within computer programs to count.

This looks like you're saying any lifeform capable of reproduction and growth can be regarded as an organic von Neumann replicating device.

I've consistantly argued against that point of yours.

But hey, my point is your point all along according to you in this latest post so tell you what...

If you agree that von Neumann machines are artificial, we'll let bygones be bygones and put this argument down to communication inadequacies on your part.

[eburacum45]

This looks like you're saying any lifeform capable of reproduction and growth can be regarded as an organic von Neumann replicating device.Well, my this earlier statement of mine is in line with Dawkins' contention that a gene is a member of the class 'replicator', which would also contain any von Neumann machines (if they existed).

It is also very similar to Dyson's contention that abiogenesis occured when two separate classes of natually occurring chemical replicators came together. Both Dawkins and Dyson are quoted in the literature as drawing inspiration from von Neumann's work on self-replicating automata, so it seems reasonable to state that life 'can be regarded as' an 'organic von Neumann replicating device'.

Incidentally Dyson's view of abiogenesis is probably an oversimplification, and a lot more work needs to be done before the origin of life is understood; it may never be fully established how this came about on our world.

All the other waffle I was coming out with about natural culture and so on is only of passing relevance to this matter, although it has made certain things clearer (to me, in any case). I may return to that later, but maybe from a different angle. It has quite a lot of relevance to a civilisation like the Culture, where almost all citizens have been altered substantially from a natural to an artificial condition. Does that make the Culture a swarm of von Neumann automata? Perhaps, perhaps not.

[eburacum45]

The chain from von Neumann to Dawkins was mentioned recently on the BBC by Adam Curtis in his series 'All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace', a series of utterly bonkers programmes but very enjoyable, and with quite a bit of relevance to Iain M Bank's stories.

[Conscious Bob]

Well, my this earlier statement of mine is in line with Dawkins' contention that a gene is a member of the class 'replicator', which would also contain any von Neumann machines (if they existed).

There is a tie-up with John Von Neumann and genetics. The mathematical Universal Constructor that John designed has similarities to the way DNA works, DNA was discovered later, however machines adopting the characteristics of organisms doesn't make them organisms


All the other waffle I was coming out with about natural culture and so on is only of passing relevance to this matter, although it has made certain things clearer (to me, in any case). I may return to that later, but maybe from a different angle. It has quite a lot of relevance to a civilisation like the Culture, where almost all citizens have been altered substantially from a natural to an artificial condition. Does that make the Culture a swarm of von Neumann automata? Perhaps, perhaps not.

I'm curious how a person like yourself can trawl up all this information concerning John Von Neumann, serve it up with other disparate scientific references and yet still not know what a Von Neumann machine is...

The Culture are a civilisation made up from Von Neumann Machines, that doesn't contradict your argument or mine. If you're defending your point that natural organisms can be considered to be Von Neumann devices then the Culture must be too, or are you starting to doubt yourself?

My point is that Von Neumann Machines are machines, machines are designed and built, in the case of a Von Neumann Machine designed and built by a third party once. John's proposal is based on manufacture, before his work on the mathematical model he proposed an actual machine that would build a duplicate of itself from raw materials and parts. Artificial not natural.

You've mentioned Richard Dawkins, this scientist has spent a fair proportion of his career promoting the theories of Charles Darwin, the fundamental idea that complex organisms can exist without being designed or built by a third party.

This distinction between natural life and Von Neumann Machines I would say would be an important one with regard studying extra terrestrial life, unless you don't think there's a need to differentiate technology from their creators.

[eburacum45]

This distinction between natural life and Von Neumann Machines I would say would be an important one with regard studying extra terrestrial life, unless you don't think there's a need to differentiate technology from their creators. If intelligent species are common and widespread in the universe, it may be very difficult to determine the difference between a naturally-evolved species and one which has (at some point in time) been modified and therefore become artificial. Ancient civilisations which may have released von Neumann replicators millions, or billions of years ago may have left no other traces, but their replicators could still be around, having evolved into entire (apparently natural) biospheres. In fact life derived from ancient von Neumann machines may be the most common form of life in the galaxy, or the universe. It might be possible to tell the difference between a biosphere which has evolved naturally and one which is derived from an artificial source, but I wouldn't rely on it.

Yes, the category 'artificial' is a useful one, but it is not necessarily a clear-cut classification, and sometimes it may not be possible to tell if something is artificial or natural. The two terms do not seem to be exclusive categories in any case, since (as you pointed out) a civilisation may be a natural phenomenon, but all its products are artificial.

Here's the chapter in Freitas and Merkle's book on self-replicating machines which discusses Iben Browning's classification of phenomena into natural and unnatural categories.
http://www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM/3.2.htm
The categories are (1) the natural non-living state (stars, planets, rocks, etc) (2) the natural living state (amoeba, fish, apes), (3) the unnatural non-living state (Acheulian hand axes, computers), and (4) the unnatural living state (von Neumann automata, genetically modified organisms such as citizens of the Culture, anyone alive today who is dependent on modern medical technology). (examples within the brackets are mine, of course). In practice it may be very difficult to distinguish between categories 2/ and 4/.

[Conscious Bob]

Here's the chapter in Freitas and Merkle's book on self-replicating machines which discusses Iben Browning's classification of phenomena into natural and unnatural categories.
http://www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM/3.2.htm
The categories are (1) the natural non-living state (stars, planets, rocks, etc) (2) the natural living state (amoeba, fish, apes), (3) the unnatural non-living state (Acheulian hand axes, computers), and (4) the unnatural living state (von Neumann automata, genetically modified organisms such as citizens of the Culture, anyone alive today who is dependent on modern medical technology). (examples within the brackets are mine, of course). In practice it may be very difficult to distinguish between categories 2/ and 4/.

Thanks for that, now in light of your last post are Von Neumann Machines artificial...?

[Old Vig]

The categories are (1) the natural non-living state (stars, planets, rocks, etc) (2) the natural living state (amoeba, fish, apes), (3) the unnatural non-living state (Acheulian hand axes, computers), and (4) the unnatural living state (von Neumann automata, genetically modified organisms such as citizens of the Culture, anyone alive today who is dependent on modern medical technology). (examples within the brackets are mine, of course). In practice it may be very difficult to distinguish between categories 2/ and 4/.
Why is it assumed that non-organic life necessarily has to be artificial? Organic life is thought to start where an environment supports self-assembling structures. Scientists have demonstrated how many of the base components of organic cells arise spontaneously, e.g lipid membranes. Once arisen specialisation and evolution begins.

Can nobody imagine environments in the wider universe where non-organic structures could self-organise into reproducing units? These units might then evolve by an analogous process to organic units. I'm not saying I know what that environment would look like, maybe where active geological processes occur with specific mixes of metal elements, silicon and halogens for example. Or are you calling this "natural living state" also?

[Conscious Bob]

Why is it assumed that non-organic life necessarily has to be artificial?

As per usual you're off on a tangent, shush now, I'm reeling this fish in.

[eburacum45]

I've imagined a non-organic molten crystalline lifeform here
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/480285df0fb2b
Banks has mentioned several non-organic life-like processes in his books, including creatures living in the quantum foam. The real problem is whether any given medium can support self-replicating automata of some sort; we know that organic compounds and computers can, but can anything else?

[eburacum45]

Von Neumann's 'self-replicating automata' need not be artificial; Freeman Dyson classifies naturally occurring self-replicating processes among this category, so I can't see why we can't do so as well. Machines incidentally are not necessarily artificial either, they are mechanical but not necessarily artefacts, as I pointed out many posts ago.

[Conscious Bob]

Banks has mentioned several non-organic life-like processes in his books, including creatures living in the quantum foam. The real problem is whether any given medium can support self-replicating automata of some sort; we know that organic compounds and computers can, but can anything else?

Well first of all apologies to Old Vig as he makes an important point, what an organism is made from is irrelevant.

Anything that evolves without being created by a third party is an organism, regardless of it's form or lifestyle.

Von Neumann Machines are different from natural life, they are created for a purpose.

That's what makes Von Neumann Machines artificial...

[eburacum45]

So it is intention that divides the artificial from the natural, eh? An interesting distinction. Sometimes, however, the intention behind the creation of an artificial entity will be hard to discover, and the purpose lost in the depths of time. In other cases the purpose may be incomprehensible to human minds.

As a category this idea of artificiality may be difficult to apply in practice.

[Old Vig]

As per usual you're off on a tangent, shush now, I'm reeling this fish in.
Tangent. Moi? He he.

[Conscious Bob]

So it is intention that divides the artificial from the natural, eh? An interesting distinction. Sometimes, however, the intention behind the creation of an artificial entity will be hard to discover, and the purpose lost in the depths of time. In other cases the purpose may be incomprehensible to human minds.

As a category this idea of artificiality may be difficult to apply in practice.

The creator intention but yeah, that's it.

In some cases easy, smatter, runs about, replicates and does pretty much what you would expect of Von Neumann Machinery. The Culture has an entire division playing a real version of Galaxian with this stuff.

In some cases difficult, the Culture, highly developed, intelligent and covered in natural sentient beings/pets/zoo animals. Didn't stop the Idirans classifying the Culture as machinery out of control in need of a good bleaching.

In some cases impossible, Airspheres, ancient, huge, protected by invisible benefactors, their origin is unknown, Airsphere flora and fauna look entirely natural but they may have been purposely adapted to live in Airspheres or may even be Von Neumann Machinery too.

The definition isn't there as a tool, it's a recognition of the implications of Von Neumann Machinery.

You're going to get Von Neumann stuff that's easy to classify but in equal portion you'll get stuff that's impossible to classify, Von Neumann Machines can evolve just like natural organisms and if they progress far enough, becomes sentient and the knowledge of their origin is lost... they might not even know they're Von Neumann Machines themselves.

It all comes back to John Von Neumann's Universal Constructor, John had an idea how a replicating machine could be applied to mathematical cellular automata. It was only later on when DNA was discovered that it became apparent real Universal Constructors occur throughout nature.

If you come across a machine built in the way nature grows an organism, you might not necessarily see the rivets.

[eburacum45]

You're going to get Von Neumann stuff that's easy to classify but in equal portion you'll get stuff that's impossible to classify, Von Neumann Machines can evolve just like natural organisms and if they progress far enough, becomes sentient and the knowledge of their origin is lost... they might not even know they're Von Neumann Machines themselves.

Even humans might be descended from some ancient replicator swarm. I'm more inclined to think we evolved from the contents of some passing ship's septic tank, but we may never know.

[Mejoff]

they might not even know they're Von Neumann Machines themselves.

"I see Von Neumann machines, walking around like regular machines, some of them don't even know they're Von Neumann"?

[Conscious Bob]

"I see Von Neumann machines, walking around like regular machines, some of them don't even know they're Von Neumann"?

Maybe you're a Von Neumann machine.