45 replies to this topic

[Myth]

straight from my old uni lectures:

living things can be recognised by what they do-

living things:

1/ have order
2/ adapt to their environment
3/ respond to their enviroment
4/ regulate their cellular and body processes
5/ grow and develop
6/ Reproduce

plants, animals... everything thats living has these characteristics. thats the scientific thought behind inanimate/living things. and yes, single celled organisms are living... being self aware doesnt really have anything to do with living, though most do. most single celled organisms just react to stimuli... they dont need to 'know' that they're alive to be considered alive- thats silly.

and concerning the whole AI thing, we're not even close to fully understanding how our brain works... we're not going to be able to MAKE an artificial brain any time soon. i know philosophy students love the phrase, "HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING" but even if we do design a AI brain with the capacity of a human, its impossible for it to do have all 6 characteristics up there imo.

just read your thing about nano bots- they cant reproduce on their own if such things exist. they need materials/matter which form the nanobots- they cannot reproduce without outside materials. 'end of the world' scenario involving nanobots such as the Grey Goo derives from this fact that they need to consume surrounding matter to 'reproduce'.

Edited by Myth, 09 October 2009 - 10:16 AM.

[Fealiks]

Such as? Logic? Emotions? Sense of humour? The ability to create shelter? The ability to create music?

These are all abstract and intangible. I'm saying that there is no measurable physical trait which could be possessed by a living thing that a lifeless thing could not also possess.

straight from my old uni lectures:

living things can be recognised by what they do-

living things:

1/ have order
2/ adapt to their environment
3/ respond to their enviroment
4/ regulate their cellular and body processes
5/ grow and develop
6/ Reproduce

plants, animals... everything thats living has these characteristics. thats the scientific thought behind inanimate/living things. and yes, single celled organisms are living... being self aware doesnt really have anything to do with living, though most do. most single celled organisms just react to stimuli... they dont need to 'know' that they're alive to be considered alive- thats silly.

Again, I'm not arguing that you can't define what a living thing is, just like I wouldn't argue that you can't define what a chocolate bar is.

I'm saying that if Plato's Forms did exist, then why would they make the distinction between living things and lifeless things so boldly?

If you look at the world objectively, you'd see physical things, the absence of physical things, and possibly non-physical things (such as thought, but we'll forget about all that crap for now). You wouldn't split physical things into a category of living and non-living, especially when you take into account that biological life on another planet might work differently from the life on our own, so from a universal and objective standpoint, the universe would be seen as "physical things and the space which they aren't occupying" rather than "physical things, the space which they aren't occupying, and things that are alive on Earth". This is why I think it is absurd that Plato's Forms are ordered in the way that they are, and even weirder that nobody could see how biased this is towards our way of thinking - it suggests that the categorization of the Forms is subjective. Note: I don't believe in Plato's realm of the Forms (just as a disclaimer so people don't start spouting crap about how philosophy students are all gullible or something...).

and concerning the whole AI thing, we're not even close to fully understanding how our brain works... we're not going to be able to MAKE an artificial brain any time soon. i know philosophy students love the phrase, "HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING" but even if we do design a AI brain with the capacity of a human, its impossible for it to do have all 6 characteristics up there imo.

just read your thing about nano bots- they cant reproduce on their own if such things exist. they need materials/matter which form the nanobots- they cannot reproduce without outside materials. 'end of the world' scenario involving nanobots such as the Grey Goo derives from this fact that they need to consume surrounding matter to 'reproduce'.

You're missing the point. Even if it would never be achievable, it is plausible. I'm just using this as a hypothesis to make a point. "Hypothetically speaking" doesn't mean "omg, this is gonna happen any minute". A hypothesis in this sense is just a technique to get someone to think differently.

For the sake of the point I'm trying to make, just assume that these imaginary robots do conform with every rule of a living thing. Forget that this will probably never happen - just imagine it. The only reason I'm getting people to imagine this is to make them realise that there is nothing tangible or measurable that separates living things from non-living things. Well, of course, there is; but nothing which separates them so boldly that you could say "the universe consists of living things and non-living things" without it being in the same vein as "the universe consists of warmly coloured things and coldly coloured things" (i.e. the fact that life exists is ultimately as inconsequential as the fact that certain things have different colours).

[Dohregard]

Anyway, a lot of people seem to think that I'm saying that you can't define life. Forget that. I'm saying that living objects are the same as non-living objects, just more complex; there is nothing that a living object possesses that a non-living object doesn't have the capacity to also possess.

Reproduction?

[Fealiks]

Reproduction?

I'm talking about physical traits, I made that clear in the post above. Reproduction is abstract - the individual things that make up reproduction can happen outside of living things.

Growth is a process that can happen in a living thing, just like convection is a process that happens around non-living things. So it actually strengthens what I'm saying and lessens the gap between living and non-living things. Chemistry is involved in the production of a baby and in the production of rock salt. The baby doesn't have anything physical and measurable that the rock salt doesn't have the potential to have. They're both physical objects. Life can't be measured by any one trait that can't also exist outside of life. There is no "life force" or "soul" that we know of.

[JimRaynor]

You're missing the point.

i use it in my diet choices every day.
i only eat things that used to be alive
how about you?
munch on any rocks lately?
want some sand? yum.

[Fealiks]

i use it in my diet choices every day.
i only eat things that used to be alive
how about you?
munch on any rocks lately?
want some sand? yum.

...
















































































































































...

[It's ME!]

reproduction is a physical trait. Reproduction isn't abstract like logic and arts.

[Myth]

I'm saying that if Plato's Forms did exist, then why would they make the distinction between living things and lifeless things so boldly?

If you look at the world objectively, you'd see physical things, the absence of physical things, and possibly non-physical things (such as thought, but we'll forget about all that crap for now). You wouldn't split physical things into a category of living and non-living, especially when you take into account that biological life on another planet might work differently from the life on our own, so from a universal and objective standpoint, the universe would be seen as "physical things and the space which they aren't occupying" rather than "physical things, the space which they aren't occupying, and things that are alive on Earth". This is why I think it is absurd that Plato's Forms are ordered in the way that they are, and even weirder that nobody could see how biased this is towards our way of thinking - it suggests that the categorization of the Forms is subjective. Note: I don't believe in Plato's realm of the Forms (just as a disclaimer so people don't start spouting crap about how philosophy students are all gullible or something...).

You're missing the point. Even if it would never be achievable, it is plausible. I'm just using this as a hypothesis to make a point. "Hypothetically speaking" doesn't mean "omg, this is gonna happen any minute". A hypothesis in this sense is just a technique to get someone to think differently.

For the sake of the point I'm trying to make, just assume that these imaginary robots do conform with every rule of a living thing. Forget that this will probably never happen - just imagine it. The only reason I'm getting people to imagine this is to make them realise that there is nothing tangible or measurable that separates living things from non-living things. Well, of course, there is; but nothing which separates them so boldly that you could say "the universe consists of living things and non-living things" without it being in the same vein as "the universe consists of warmly coloured things and coldly coloured things" (i.e. the fact that life exists is ultimately as inconsequential as the fact that certain things have different colours).

okay, so just to make it clear, you're debate is more towards why and how plato had made a distinction between living things and non-living things so boldly when he didnt have the 'knowledge' (not quite the choice of word i was looking for but i cant think atm) to distinguish between the two, am i right? i think you're thinking too hard in this one- i'd say its like the ancient japanese. The ancient japanese considered 'living' things to be only humans and animals. plants werent considered living to them. i think in plato's era, living things and non-living things were individually predefined arbitrarly by the society, much like the ancient japanese views. it would seem 'normal' and 'obvious' to them whether something was living or non-living in their frame of reference, even if the definition of living things have changed since then.

i understand where you're coming from when you say assume imaginary robots conform with the 'rules' of living things. if something (even a robot) conforms with all the characteristics of a living thing, then i'd consider it a living thing. HOWEVER, the fact is that its impossible for nonliving things to have all the characteristics of living things therefore we can distinguish between the two. its like holding up a bowl spaghetti and saying IMAGINE this is a cake, imagine that it has all the same characteristics which make up a cake. therefore there is no real distinction between a cake and bowl of spaghetti.

and no, i dont find philosophy students gullible or anything, i just find philosophy lecturers rediculously frustrating. philosophy itself is very interesting, it opens up your mind in a sense by bringing up questions and challenging the way i think, but philosophy lecturers all seem to be cheeky buggers.

[Fealiks]

i understand where you're coming from when you say assume imaginary robots conform with the 'rules' of living things. if something (even a robot) conforms with all the characteristics of a living thing, then i'd consider it a living thing. HOWEVER, the fact is that its impossible for nonliving things to have all the characteristics of living things therefore we can distinguish between the two. its like holding up a bowl spaghetti and saying IMAGINE this is a cake, imagine that it has all the same characteristics which make up a cake. therefore there is no real distinction between a cake and bowl of spaghetti.

But my whole point was that it would be possible to build a robot with life. Some scientists already predict that we will be able to build robots with brains as intricate as a human brain in the next few hundred years. So if people think about this imaginary robot - no matter how far off it might be (or even if it never happens), they can appreciate that life isn't magical. All evidence suggests that life is not given to something in the form of something metaphysical (like a soul). Life is just the word we use to describe a series of interactions and reactions with lots of different physical objects. People seem to reject this and like to attribute something more to life. People often say that since we are self aware there must be something more to it, but I would argue that our awareness is simply a product of electrical and chemical interactions, just as the calculations completed within the "brain" of a computer are products of electrical interactions.

People have always explained things to which they do not know the answer as "utterly unexplainable" and "the product of magic". We still haven't fully escaped this way of thinking. Thousands of years ago people thought that fire was magical and that we could never begin to explain what it is or why it happens with our physical brains. We now have a much better understanding of fire and why it happens. We no longer believe it to be the product of magic, but of a chemical reaction. I believe that at some point in the near or distant future, the same will be true for consciousness - the general public will no longer think that it's science, with a little bit of divinity thrown in for the aspects which we can never begin to explain - they will agree that it can simply be explained with science, as can everything. People need to stop thinking that magic (or divinity or metaphysics, whatever you want to call it) can explain what science can't. Science can explain everything - that's what science is. It's the study and explanation of why things work the way they do. If you choose to think that magic can explain something, then you must acknowledge that science can explain that magic.

[Dohregard]

I'm talking about physical traits, I made that clear in the post above. Reproduction is abstract - the individual things that make up reproduction can happen outside of living things.

Are you kidding me? Reproduction is the most physical part of being alive. Cells are needed to reproduce, and how can inorganic material divide to create new inorganic life with the same characteristics and proportions as the original? All these reproduction cells themselves are alive, just like a the offspring they will create.

[Fealiks]

Are you kidding me? Reproduction is the most physical part of being alive. Cells are needed to reproduce, and how can inorganic material divide to create new inorganic life with the same characteristics and proportions as the original? All these reproduction cells themselves are alive, just like a the offspring they will create.

Reproduction isn't a physical trait, at least not in the sense that I'm using the phrase. Reproduction is a concept based on physical processes, it's not an actual physical entity. You can't draw reproduction without using animation or a series of images. You can't hold reproduction in your hands; it's abstract.

[It's ME!]

Reproduction isn't a physical trait, at least not in the sense that I'm using the phrase. Reproduction is a concept based on physical processes, it's not an actual physical entity. You can't draw reproduction without using animation or a series of images. You can't hold reproduction in your hands; it's abstract.

Reproduction is an action just like eating or running. It's a physical process.

[Fealiks]

Yeah, not a physical trait.

But we're straying dangerously far from the point... it makes me uncomfortable.

Edited by Fealiks, 10 October 2009 - 05:24 PM.

[Myth]

But my whole point was that it would be possible to build a robot with life. Some scientists already predict that we will be able to build robots with brains as intricate as a human brain in the next few hundred years. So if people think about this imaginary robot - no matter how far off it might be (or even if it never happens), they can appreciate that life isn't magical. All evidence suggests that life is not given to something in the form of something metaphysical (like a soul). Life is just the word we use to describe a series of interactions and reactions with lots of different physical objects. People seem to reject this and like to attribute something more to life. People often say that since we are self aware there must be something more to it, but I would argue that our awareness is simply a product of electrical and chemical interactions, just as the calculations completed within the "brain" of a computer are products of electrical interactions

i dont think anyone in this thread said life had some kind of metaphysical thing to it. (hell, even christians believe dogs a living things despite their belief that dogs dont have souls) some scientists are predicting that we will be able to build robots with brains equivilant of humans', yes, im not denying that either. im saying it'll be impossible for them to reproduce with its own resources.

concerning the whole, physical trait thing- i think this is where we're getting confused. ofcourse living things and non-living have PHYSICALLY same traits- we're made from the same matter as any other objects in this universe because matter is the only thing which anything can be made of. the things which set us apart from the non-living things is what we DO. but saying there isnt anything which differ from non-living and living things isnt right imo just because we're made from the same matter.

[Dohregard]

Yeah, not a physical trait.

But we're straying dangerously far from the point... it makes me uncomfortable.

no, it is a physical act were nothing abstract ever occurs... unless you believe in a god. Rest is a physical act because everything involved is physical, the only things you can argue that aren't physical are things that you can't sense, like thoughts.


How is this straying from the point, this is a very good point that you have yet to fully prove incorrect.

[Fealiks]

no, it is a physical act were nothing abstract ever occurs... unless you believe in a god. Rest is a physical act because everything involved is physical, the only things you can argue that aren't physical are things that you can't sense, like thoughts.


How is this straying from the point, this is a very good point that you have yet to fully prove incorrect.

Reproduction is a process that happens in animals just like bonding is a process that happens in chemicals. Reproduction does set apart living and lifeless things, but it doesn't make living things any more consequential than non-living things. Would you say that paper is more important than water because paper can degrade and water can't?

The reason I'm saying reproduction isn't a physical trait is because that isn't what I meant by physical trait. I didn't mean process. I'm trying to say that there isn't any physical attribute that a living thing can possess and a lifeless thing cannot. You might say that living things have brains with electricity in them which is something which doesn't occur in lifeless objects, but lightbulbs have electricity. The fact is that you could isolate any part of an animal and you wouldn't find anything that is exclusive to animals. There is nothing that an animal possesses that cannot be possessed by a lifeless object.

[zalzaron]

. There is nothing that an animal possesses that cannot be possessed by a lifeless object.

Cells?

[It's ME!]

i see now. we're just a bunch of minerals walking around and thinking of how to interact with other minerals. you're just a composition of minerals that has the same level of complexity as oxygen or water. after all we're all just 70% water.
am I doing it right? like is that what you're trying to get at?

Edited by It's ME!, 11 October 2009 - 02:18 PM.

[Dohregard]

i see now. we're just a bunch of minerals walking around and thinking of how to interact with other minerals. you're just a composition of minerals that has the same level of complexity as oxygen or water. after all we're all just 70% water.
am I doing it right? like is that what you're trying to get at?

The above statement is correct, and fascinating. I always love thinking about how everything around us is made up of things that were once living.

If that's what he's being trying to say this whole time I'm going to laugh so fucking hard!

Edited by Dohregard, 11 October 2009 - 07:02 PM.

[JimRaynor]

I'm talking about physical traits, I made that clear in the post above. Reproduction is abstract - the individual things that make up reproduction can happen outside of living things.

Growth is a process that can happen in a living thing, just like convection is a process that happens around non-living things. So it actually strengthens what I'm saying and lessens the gap between living and non-living things. Chemistry is involved in the production of a baby and in the production of rock salt. The baby doesn't have anything physical and measurable that the rock salt doesn't have the potential to have. They're both physical objects. Life can't be measured by any one trait that can't also exist outside of life. There is no "life force" or "soul" that we know of.

during the length of this thread's life ...
if i were unable to identify things that used to be alive...
i'd be dead from starvation by now.