You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Eduard Buchner: The Man Who Killed Vitalism
As far as I'm concerned, something is alive if it possesses consciousness.
So bacteria are not alive? What about a plant? No evidence of consciousness there.
For instance, if we define life as DNA-based, do you think non DNA-based life is impossible?
Sure, why not? It would have to be very simple, but RNA could potentially support life.
Do you think life is mechanical?
No, we are too adaptable. Machines by and large are not.
Well that's the problem, but I'll bite the bullet and say that, as far as I'm concerned, they're not alive! I can certainly see a (close) future in which scientists create nano-"bacteria" that possess all the qualities that are usually assigned to life. They can already do that with software, but since they don't exist in the outside world, we don't call them life. But how difficult would it be to give that software a 3D material metallic body? And if we do that, I'll call it a robot. A dead robot. Not life. So no, I don't consider them life, though I know my definition is highly idiosyncratic!
I guess this might relate to the Sorites paradox: at which point does a wound up toy soldier become so complicated that we're willing to call it life?
Also, about plants, there's some wacky scientists now saying they possess consciousness! Using their own idiosyncratic definitions!
Thank you for your comments!
I have never disagreed with anyone on anything so much. :D
Why should the human designation of consciousness have any bearing on what life is? IMO a very narcissistic stance ;)
If the thing is metabolically active and exists to reproduce (at minimum), then its alive IMO. IE has enzymes for the purpose of performing chemical reactions to generate energy. (for this reason viruses are not alive, they lack their own metabolic capabilities, though I would argue that perhaps they have enough and are life)
If the robots don't have metabolism they aren't alive. If they do, I don't think it matters that their outside is made of metal.
When it has its own metabolic capabilities and can reproduce.
It's a different question to ask, at what point would we consider a toy soldier a human?
Thanks for the upvote in my post
You don't need to thank me for upvotes. I upvote because I want to :)
Like here, you get $2 because I want you to have it.
Actually i trying new approach to improve here in steemit, i feel like im playing a computer game hahahaha
awesome, i do this because its a personal approach to another steemers and i noticed is not common people do this.
Just remembered that Frankenstein (the doctor) says "it is alive" (of the monster), so...he could've meant "it's moving", so...fail!
How do we know frankenstein lacked metabolic processes? ;)
We only know he was reanimated by lightning.
Well we can't really define consciousness yet (or at least we can't detect it), so I don't know if it matters much whether we call something alive only if it's conscious. My favorite "definition" of consciousness is by Thomas Nagel, who said that "x is conscious if and only if there is something it's like to be x". So if the question "what is it like being a bacterium" has the same answer as the question "what is it like being a rock", then the bacterium isn't conscious. And, at least according to one dictionary definition (I haven't really checked!) it's therefore not alive. If Frankenstein's declaration "I'm alive!" didn't imply consciousness, it would be much less impactful!
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I think I just got two definitions of "alive" in my head (like the Frankenstein example shows), and I'm much more concerned with the one that implies consciousness, because if something has consciousness then ethics gets into the picture: we can't just experiment on them willy-nilly. Like what would happen to vegans if the guy in the video is right and plants do have consciousness? (I almost wish they do now!)
Well i think simple responses can still take it as "consciousness"?
So like bacteria and plants are still reasonsibly responsive to the environmental changes.
I havent work on RNA stuff before. Is RNA too unstable to support life?
RNA is too unstable to get really really huge, however this doesn't necessarily preclude it from supporting life. Additionally one could think of a ribosome like situation where accessory proteins stabilize RNA better.