How Would You Define "life"?

[stephen_speicher]

Stephen: I understand that life "as we know it" is organic. The problem I am getting at is in recognizing life forms outside Earth biology. If we found critters on Mars essentially the same as Earth bacteria it would not be an issue. But suppose we found silicon-based critters that have all of the complex self-regulating functions as Earth life. Would they be alive, or does the concept just not apply because "life" is defined only within the context of Earth life? Would we then have to redefine the term or come up with a new one?

When and if we discover silicon-based life then we expand our view of "life" to include more than just the organic-based life that we know of. But, this has nothing at all to do with your "robot," which is an electro-mechanical device that was designed to mimic life and which operates under a different set of causal principles.

[Godless Capitalist]

But how are the causal principles different? If you look at a bacterium at a biochemical level, it is essentially a very complex biological machine. All of its functions are deterministic mechanical and biochemical processes directed by code in the form of DNA. I fail to see why a very complex robot would be considered to be philosophically any different.

[stephen_speicher]

But how are the causal principles different?

As has been explained many times, the actions of inanimate matter are simply reactions to imposed forces, whereas the actions of living organisms are primarily governed by a complexity of self-regulatory systems exhibiting goal-directed action in furtherance of its life.

If you look at a bacterium at a biochemical level, it is essentially a very complex biological machine. All of its functions are deterministic mechanical and biochemical processes directed by code in the form of DNA.

Your choice of words belies your intent. It is the integration of an entire complex of self-regulatory systems which gives rise to life, which is what we mean when we say that life is reducible to a set of biochemical processess. The self-regulatory systems, even in as simple a life-form as bacteria, are not to be likened to programming computers with your "directed by code in the form of DNA." There exist regulatory systems for repair to DNA damage, such as, for instance, signals that induce an increase in the transcription of genes. These actions exhibit the goal-directedness of the bacterium in increasing cell survival. Likewise, there is bacterial chemotaxis where motile bacteria can direct swimming towards that which furthers its life, and away from that which harms it. This is an adaptive regulatory system which, in effect, detects spatial gradients of amino acids, small peptides, and other nutrients, and which permits a velocity-dependent progress in a valued direction, over time. The self-regulatory systems that are essential to life do not exist in inanimate matter.

I fail to see why a very complex robot would be considered to be philosophically any different.

If you mean what you said literally -- philosophically, not scientifically -- then indeed it might be rather difficult to discern any one particular instance of actions by a complex electro-mechanical robot from the actions of a living organism. Of course, philosophically, in principle, this is easily taken care of by understanding the differing nature of the two, and, scientifically, by dissecting and determining the causal principles by which the two act.

I have to note that this whole discussion, primarily between yourself, me, and Bowzer, does not seem headed towards resolution. There are only so many ways we can say the same thing, and, for some reason I cannot discern, you just do not seem to "get" what we are saying. Perhaps it is time for a break. Maybe looking at these posts sometime later, something might "click."

[Godless Capitalist]

Stephen, part of the problem seems to me to be that you are taking "robot" to mean only the fairly simple devices that currently exist. What I am asking is this: if in the future we could build a robot that has all of the regulatory systems, etc, that you describe in a bacterium, would it then be alive? That is what I meant by "very complex robot."

[stephen_speicher]

Stephen, part of the problem seems to me to be that you are taking "robot" to mean only the fairly simple devices that currently exist. What I am asking is this: if in the future we could build a robot that has all of the regulatory systems, etc, that you describe in a bacterium, would it then be alive? That is what I meant by "very complex robot."

Nature created life, and so can we. If we created a cell, it would be a cell. But, for the final time, an electro-mechanical robot which mimics life, is not life. Not any more than a flight simulator program on a computer should be confused with actually flying a plane.

[Bowzer]

Stephen, part of the problem seems to me to be that you are taking "robot" to mean only the fairly simple devices that currently exist. What I am asking is this: if in the future we could build a robot that has all of the regulatory systems, etc, that you describe in a bacterium, would it then be alive? That is what I meant by "very complex robot."

Why focus on large-scale entities? Why not ask if it might someday be possible to synthesize a cell? Although I really have no idea how difficult this task would be, I don’t see any reasons to rule it out. We have a very detailed understanding of the nature of living cells.

So suppose that someday we synthesize a cell completely from “scratch.” Such a creation would not alter the nature of life and it would not change the fact that this man-made cell exhibits all of the characteristics of life, i.e., it would be a living thing. My point has never been that robots are man-made and because of this cannot be alive. The point is in the essential metaphysical distinction between the animate and the inanimate and this seems to be the point that you are either missing or in disagreement over. Miss Rand makes this distinction quite clear and I have given references previously in this thread.

I agree with Stephen that there isn't much more to be said on this matter.

(And I see that while I typed this up Stephen and I have once again made the same point together. I'm posting anyway...sorry if this is too redundant.)

[Godless Capitalist]

The point is in the essential metaphysical distinction between the animate and the inanimate and this seems to be the point that you are either missing or in disagreement over.

Why do you consider an advanced complex robot to be "inanimate"? Taking the meaning of "animate" literally, even current robots are not inanimate. If you are using a different meaning for "animate" please explain what it is.

[Bowzer]

Why do you consider an advanced complex robot to be "inanimate"? Taking the meaning of "animate" literally, even current robots are not inanimate. If you are using a different meaning for "animate" please explain what it is.

It's very common to use "animated" to refer to living things versus non-living things. Complex robots are not animated because they do not engage in goal-directed action. I know that you think they do but they don't. If you want to know why, you should read Dr. Binswanger's book or his pamphlet. Again, I really have nothing more to add to this above the recommendations that have been made. I just wanted to make the point that I am not the one abusing or misapplying terms here.

[Godless Capitalist]

I just wanted to make the point that I am not the one abusing or misapplying terms here.

I'm not accusing you of abusing or misapplying terms, and I don't believe I am doing so either. I'm just asking for a clarification. But since you seem to be unwilling to answer my questions, I will take your advice and read the Binswanger book.