How Would You Define "life"?

[Godless Capitalist]

This is actually a serious problem for biology. There is no good definition of "life," just a list of characteristics of living things, such as "metabolism," "response to stimuli," "reproduction," and so on. Any ideas on how to come up with a good definition for "life"?

[Bowzer]

This is actually a serious problem for biology. There is no good definition of "life," just a list of characteristics of living things, such as "metabolism," "response to stimuli," "reproduction," and so on. Any ideas on how to come up with a good definition for "life"?

You're dissatisfied with Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff's definition? See "Living Organisms As Goal-Directed And Conditional" in OPAR, Chapter 6 not to mention dozens of other places where life is defined and discussed.

[Godless Capitalist]

I read that book a long time ago, forgot about that section, and don't have a copy now. I would really appreciate it if someone could quote the relevant passage.

[Bowzer]

I read that book a long time ago, forgot about that section, and don't have a copy now. I would really appreciate it if someone could quote the relevant passage.

The most important passage from the Objectivist literature is this excerpt from Galt's Speech (also found in "The Objectivist Ethics" and in OPAR):

There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.

If you want a brilliantly essentialized but more lengthy discussion of the nature of life, see Harry Binswanger's pamphlet, Life-Based Teleology and the Foundations of Ethics.

[Godless Capitalist]

Thanks; that helps clarify the issue.

Suppose you were to design a battery-powered robot that needed to be plugged once in a while to be recharged. You could program the robot to detect when it had low batteries, to find a wall socket, and plug itself in. You could also program the robot to avoid being run over by cars or otherwise damaged or destroyed. Such a robot would seem to meet the criteria of "self-sustaining and self-generated action" and would thus be "alive." Functionally it would not be much different from a typical insect, which finds food and avoids predators. Yet to a biologist the robot would not be alive and the insect would be. Perhaps it is just that life "as we know it" is always made up of organic compounds, yet this is not really a fundamental characteristic of "life."

Also, many organisms do not really take any "action." They just passively absorb nutrients from their environment. If there are enough nutrients present they survive; if not they die. The organism doesn't actively seek out the nutrients. Of course there are complex metabolic processes going on inside the organism that are needed for it to survive, but these do not in and of themselves seem to be "life." A nonlife example of this would be the growth of a crystal in a solution. the crystal does not actively seek out molecules to add to itself; it just passively has them added by chemical processes.

[AshRyan]

Suppose you were to design a battery-powered robot that needed to be plugged once in a while to be recharged. You could program the robot to detect when it had low batteries, to find a wall socket, and plug itself in. You could also program the robot to avoid being run over by cars or otherwise damaged or destroyed. Such a robot would seem to meet the criteria of "self-sustaining and self-generated action" and would thus be "alive." Functionally it would not be much different from a typical insect, which finds food and avoids predators. Yet to a biologist the robot would not be alive and the insect would be. Perhaps it is just that life "as we know it" is always made up of organic compounds, yet this is not really a fundamental characteristic of "life."

I have seen this exact example before. The robot's actions are not self-sustaining in the relevant sense here. Perhaps you should reread Ayn Rand's wider discussion of this issue in "The Objectivist Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness.

Also, many organisms do not really take any "action." They just passively absorb nutrients from their environment. If there are enough nutrients present they survive; if not they die. The organism doesn't actively seek out the nutrients. Of course there are complex metabolic processes going on inside the organism that are needed for it to survive, but these do not in and of themselves seem to be "life." A nonlife example of this would be the growth of a crystal in a solution. the crystal does not actively seek out molecules to add to itself; it just passively has them added by chemical processes.

In the case of the plant (or whatever), the process is indeed an active, goal-directed one. In the case of the crystal, it is not. You do not seem to have really grasped the distinction that Ayn Rand made in the passage Bowzer quoted. But if you want a much more detailed argument supporting that point, I will second Bowzer's recommendation of Harry Binswanger's pamphlet (or his lengthier book The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts).

[Godless Capitalist]

I have read "The Objectivist Ethics" many times; you are right that I do not grasp the distinction made. I have also read The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts but many years ago; I will look for a copy and read it again.

Here is what I want to know: In what way is the robot different from an insect? (except of course that the insect is organic and the robot is mechanical) An insect's behavior can be completely reduced to deterministic biochemical processes, in the same way that the robot's behavior can be completely reduced to deterministic electromechanical processes. Both act to sustain themselves; why do you say the "robot's actions are not self-sustaining in the relevant sense"?

[MisterSwig]

Here is what I want to know: In what way is the robot different from an insect?

A robot has a program. An insect has a consciousness.

[Godless Capitalist]

An insect has a consciousness.

That seems very unlikely, considering how simple its nervous system is. However, my point applies equally well to an amoeba, which has no nervous system at all.

[MisterSwig]

That [an insect is conscious] seems very unlikely, considering how simple its nervous system is.

Well, I suggest you read The Virtue of Selfishness (p. 19) and OPAR (p. 193). You're clashing here with both Ayn Rand and Dr. Peikoff, and I don't have the time to educate you on the Objectivist view of consciousness. Really, you should read these texts again.

If we reach agreement on the consciousness issue, then I'll consider addressing the idea that a robot is "alive." Seriously, though, I think you would do better to compare a robot to a plant, which is not conscious, yet living nonetheless.

[Godless Capitalist]

Well, I suggest you read The Virtue of Selfishness (p. 19)

Done. The bottom of p. 18, on "sensation," is actually more relevant. This is closer to what I am talking about, although I am dubious that an insect even has a pleasure-pain mechanism. An insect is essentially a biological robot; its programs are biochemical rather than electric or mechanical, but the essentials are the same.

I cannot seem to find a definition of "consciousness" in The Objectivist Ethics. To me it means mental awareness at least the basic level of sensation, something I think is very unlikely in insects. If you have a better definition, I will be happy to consider it.

In any case, the issue was "life" not "consciousness" so plants will do just as well. Ayn Rand gives an example of a plant growing in a certain way to reach sunlight. ( The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 18) This is certainly an action the plant takes to further its life, but it does so entirely by an automatic biochemical process. Why, then, is the plant alive and my robot isn't?

[Bowzer]

Godless_Capitalist, you should read this thread and see if it helps your questions. You may be making the same errors that others in that thread made.

[Bowzer]

This is the quote that I was really looking for:

"Life" comes down to this: lock a cat and a robot in separate rooms. Come back one year later and what do you find? A decaying pile of yuck that was once the cat. It has died since it was unable to obtain the materials needed to sustain its life. The robot, on the other hand, looks just as good as ever. Conclusion: a cat and a robot are different in a fundamental way--one is alive the other is not.

You won't find that scenario convincing unless you accept the Objectivist theory of concepts. A concept's meaning is in the units that it subsumes...

[stephen_speicher]

In any case, the issue was "life" not "consciousness" so plants will do just as well. Ayn Rand gives an example of a plant growing in a certain way to reach sunlight. ( The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 18)  This is certainly an action the plant takes to further its life, but it does so entirely by an automatic biochemical process. Why, then, is the plant alive and my robot isn't?

For the same reason that a picture of a plant is not itself a plant. The robot is mimicking the actions of living entity, but its actions are not reducible to the biochemical processes from whence life comes. The robot is simply a (sophisticated) electro-mechanical device. Currently we have already taken the first major step towards building a biological computer. When and if we can create a biological entity that acts, then we might consider such actions as being representative of life. As to consciousness itself, that is an entirely different matter.

[MisterSwig]

I cannot seem to find a definition of "consciousness" in The Objectivist Ethics. To me it means mental awareness at least the basic level of sensation, something I think is very unlikely in insects. If you have a better definition, I will be happy to consider it.

"Consciousness is the faculty of awareness--the faculty of perceiving that which exists." (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 37)

Ayn Rand does not use the modifier "mental" in her definition.

In any case, the issue was "life" not "consciousness" so plants will do just as well. Ayn Rand gives an example of a plant growing in a certain way to reach sunlight. ( The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 18)  This is certainly an action the plant takes to further its life, but it does so entirely by an automatic biochemical process. Why, then, is the plant alive and my robot isn't?

Some things to consider:

1. A plant, as well as all living organisms, can die. A robot does not die. It breaks. It can be fixed. If a plant dies, it is gone forever. If a robot fails to recharge itself, well, a man can come along and recharge it. Life does not come back from the dead.

2. Also, both a plant and a robot, in one sense, can be said to act "automatically." They don't have free will, like man. But there is more to it than that. A plant's automation is natural, while a robot's is man-made. There is the question of the metaphysical versus the man-made to consider.

3. And finally, the fundamental cause of life is not known--at least I don't know it. Life is a phenomenon that we experience, but as yet cannot fully explain. Kind of like consciousness and Michael Jackson.

However (as others have already pointed out) proving that a robot is alive will take more than showing how it mimics living organisms. At the very least, I think you would need to create a being that is capable of physically dying in the manner of a plant or animal.

To return to Ayn Rand's definition of life ("a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action"), keep in mind that she was defining life as a process. When this process stops, the living entity dies. However, if a robot's processes stop, it merely shuts down. The entity remains.

The way I see it, your robot's processes do not sustain the robot; they sustain the processes themselves. The robot does not need sustaining, because it is not in danger of dying. It is only in danger of temporarily turning off.

Would you argue that a plant dying is the same as a robot shutting down?

[Godless Capitalist]

Godless_Capitalist, you should read this thread and see if it helps your questions. You may be making the same errors that others in that thread made.

Interesting thread but I have not changed my mind. I responded to you there but it may help to repeat my response here:

I am arguing for something even stronger than the relationship of consciousness to the brain. I am arguing for its inextricable link to life as such. (I am not arguing that this is part of Objectivism but I definitely consider it to be compatible with Objectivism.)

Consciousness is a sub process of life (like digestion or respiration). It exists due to its evolutionary value for those organisms possessing it. Its sole purpose is for value-satisfaction. I still fail to see how you could ever tie the faculty of consciousness to something that is not alive.

Your argument here seem to be circular. You are assuming that a robot cannot be alive and thus cannot be conscious. But that rests on the idea that only biological entities can be alive, which has not been proven. Just because all of the examples of life we have are biological does not mean that non-biological life is impossible. If it were possible to create a conscious robot that had to act to preserve its existence, it would be "alive" according to the Objectivist definition. Now as discussed above such a robot is an arbitrary speculation, but it is certainly not impossible by definition as you seem to be claiming.

"Life" comes down to this: lock a cat and a robot in separate rooms. Come back one year later and what do you find? A decaying pile of yuck that was once the cat. It has died since it was unable to obtain the materials needed to sustain its life. The robot, on the other hand, looks just as good as ever. Conclusion: a cat and a robot are different in a fundamental way--one is alive the other is not.

You won't find that scenario convincing unless you accept the Objectivist theory of concepts. A concept's meaning is in the units that it subsumes...

That doesn't help. I specified in my original example that the robot needs to recharge itself (equivalent to finding food) in order to survive. To partly answer one of Mr Swig's comments, perhaps its processor requires at least a minimal trickle of power to retain memory, etc. If its batteries run down completely it will "die." And of course it could be run over by a steamroller and damaged beyond repair (in the same way that injured humans can sometimes be "repaired" by doctors and sometimes not).

[Godless Capitalist]

The robot is mimicking the actions of living entity, but its actions are not reducible to the biochemical processes from whence life comes.

Where in the Objectivist definition of "life" does it say or imply that life must be based on biochemical processes? Currently the only examples of life we have are biochemical, but I don't see how that is fundamental to the concept of life.

This by the way is a big issue for scientists looking for signs of life on places like Mars: how do we know what to look for when Martian life might be totally different from ours?

[Godless Capitalist]

"Consciousness is the faculty of awareness--the faculty of perceiving that which exists." (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 37)

Ayn Rand does not use the modifier "mental" in her definition.

Good definition. I agree the modifier "mental" is not needed but I think it is implied that awareness requires some sort of brain to be aware. That's why a plant is not conscious. As for whether an insect is conscious, that is a question for science not philosophy. We don't really know how large and complex a nervous system needs to be to be conscious.

In any case, consciousness is a side issue here. There is another thread for that, as referenced by Bowzer.

I think my other posts above addressed your other points.

[Bowzer]

That doesn't help. I specified in my original example that the robot needs to recharge itself (equivalent to finding food) in order to survive. To partly answer one of Mr Swig's comments, perhaps its processor requires at least a minimal trickle of power to retain memory, etc. If its batteries run down completely it will "die." And of course it could be run over by a steamroller and damaged beyond repair (in the same way that injured humans can sometimes be "repaired" by doctors and sometimes not).

You've completely missed my point and I see now that I should ammend my statement to read "You won't find that scenario convincing unless you understand the Objectivist theory of concepts. A concept's meaning is in the units that it subsumes..."

In including hunks of metal powered by batteries under the concept of "life," you are making the same error identified by Dr. Peikoff in his "encirclement" example in OPAR (p. 100).

[Bowzer]

I specified in my original example that the robot needs to recharge itself (equivalent to finding food) in order to survive. To partly answer one of Mr Swig's comments, perhaps its processor requires at least a minimal trickle of power to retain memory, etc. If its batteries run down completely it will "die." And of course it could be run over by a steamroller and damaged beyond repair (in the same way that injured humans can sometimes be "repaired" by doctors and sometimes not).

Since all of these things hold true of my laptop computer, I suppose that I have just inherited a new pet.

[tommyedison]

However (as others have already pointed out) proving that a robot is alive will take more than showing how it mimics living organisms. At the very least, I think you would need to create a being that is capable of physically dying in the manner of a plant or animal.

To return to Ayn Rand's definition of life ("a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action"), keep in mind that she was defining life as a process. When this process stops, the living entity dies. However, if a robot's processes stop, it merely shuts down. The entity remains.

The way I see it, your robot's processes do not sustain the robot; they sustain the processes themselves. The robot does not need sustaining, because it is not in danger of dying. It is only in danger of temporarily turning off.

Would you argue that a plant dying is the same as a robot shutting down?

Do you mean to say that if and when we do discover the fundamental concept behind conscious life and discover the technology to bring dead back to life (nothing is impossible), then we will not be alive, as we will not be in the danger of dying?

[stephen_speicher]

Where in the Objectivist definition of "life" does it say or imply that life must be based on biochemical processes? Currently the only examples of life we have are biochemical, but I don't see how that is fundamental to the concept of life.

I am not aware of any formal Objectivist definition of "life," though "life" has certainly been characterized in terms of essentials by Miss Rand and others. I do not mean to be facetious but I hope you realize that the context of "life" is a biological context, the study of organic self-regulation. A living entity, as distinguished from a mechanical object, from the simplest cell to the complexities of man, exhibits the process of organic self-regulation. The more complicated forms of life are themselves composed of a complex structure of interdependent parts that are each controlled, at least in part, by their own regulatory system, as well as regulated by the higher-level structures to which they are related. When we speak of life we speak in terms of systems of organic self-regulated entities which operate under a different set of causal principles then simple mechanistic behavior. As I said, your robot is designed to mimic life, not to itself be alive. That you do recognize the organic self-regulators as "fundamental to the concept of life" just indicates that you must have a different concept of life than that which is the study of biology, and also which a proper philosophy adheres to.

[MisterSwig]

Do you mean to say that if and when we do discover the fundamental concept behind conscious life and discover the technology to bring dead back to life (nothing is impossible), then we will not be alive, as we will not be in the danger of dying?

If--and that's a BIG "IF"--we discover how to bring the dead back to life, then we would still be in danger of dying again. The key would be to figure out how to prevent death. But even that doesn't negate the fact that we would die if we didn't prevent it from happening.

By the way, some things are impossible. You should seriously reconsider your belief that "nothing is impossible." A cannot be non-A at the same time and in the same respect.

[stephen_speicher]

...That you do recognize the organic self-regulators as "fundamental to the concept of life" just indicates that you must have a different concept of life than that which is the study of biology, and also which a proper philosophy adheres to.

Oops. That should be "That you do NOT recognize ..."

[Godless Capitalist]

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?

Let me give another example that may help. Until about 10 years ago the only planets we knew of orbited our Sun. The astronomer's definition of planet did not include that, yet all known examples of planets did orbit our Sun. Then people found "planets" orbiting other stars. Should they not have called them planets because they did not fit into the original context of our solar system?

Since all of these things hold true of my laptop computer, I suppose that I have just inherited a new pet.

Except your laptop doesn't plug itself in.