Can a robot be called as Living thing?

SW VandeCarr

Biologists can discuss this in the philosophy forum just as philosophical questions re physics are discussed in the "new improved" philosophy forum now. In any case, it's for the mentors to decide. I'm just giving my opinion.

As I said, language follows reality. The reality for biologists is described by the language of biology. It's not clear to me that this language describes robots or the human-robot distinction. Until such time as this is part of biological science, it should not be a subject of discussion in this forum IMO. We've already had over 80 posts and gotten nowhere.

Pythagorean

in theory they could, in practice they don't

me too

that's because the biologists answer is "we don't know". Philosophy forum won't be any more productive. To speak in generalities, experimental biologists can articulate the question into falsifiable experiments, which is stimulating to theoretical biologists.

It's already been hinted at that we still have trouble with defining life when it comes to a known candidate: viruses.

I would think a more general, abstract framework (such as information theory) might have something to say about defining life, too.

nismaratwork

I don't believe we can AFFORD to beleive that these are questions only for philosophers, or they're going to be alone in this thinking when scientists are called to testify and help make these determinations.

"What is life" is philosophical, but how to define a machine with as much or greater complexity than its builders strikes me as something that could be practical.

And no... I'm not saying we're on the brink of "Judgement Day", just that the same reasoning is going to be applied to cloning and other issue.

It's called: "Bio-ethics", and I'd say this falls into the biology side if we stick with the OP.

SW VandeCarr

Who said these type of questions are only for philosophers? I didn't. I said this was a philosophical question. The scientific answer to the OP's question is "no". The biological definition of life is narrow and focused: RNA, DNA based replicating organisms including viruses. Prions are borderline, but are studied by biologists because they are replicating proteins and interact with living systems. Beyond this we get into opinions and speculation.

The ethical questions that might arise with intelligent robots certainly are important philosophical questions deserving serious discussion. Should a science forum deal with ethics (other than perhaps the ethics of practicing science)? I don't think so, but that doesn't mean scientists shouldn't get involved.

Lievo

You're illustrating a point I made earlier that the scientific definition may change if we face a robot that our brain will obviously consider alive. I was answered that the biological definition of life is narrow and focused. And excluded viruses.

SW VandeCarr

Even if you choose to consider viruses as non-living, they are RNA and DNA based replicating entities which interact with cell-based life to such an extent that no biologist would deny they are proper, in fact essential, subjects in the study of living systems.

Lievo

You don't get my point. This is not my choice, but that was the choice of most biologists before the mimiviruses (I'm not sure of the present concensus). I'm just stating this an example that what we call scientific definition is obviously subject to change. Thus, when you argue that robots are not defined as living form, I'm not arguing this is not the present definition. I'm just underling that this definition may well change in the future, as it did before (at least for a couple of biologist, including me).

nismaratwork

Huh, that seems fairly clear cut, and beyond that I'm not going on a tangent of a tangent... this isn't GD. If you want to scuttle the thread, do it alone.

SW VandeCarr

OK. But there's a difference between saying 'a virus is alive' and a virus is 'an RNA,DNA based replicating entity'. The former might be subject to change, but the latter is just a fact. I'm not saying that science forum discussions ought to only discuss facts, but they should stay within the bounds of accepted theory and conventions surrounding those facts. It probably doesn't matter that much whether you want consider viruses as alive or not as long as you accept the objective knowledge regarding viruses and their importance in biology.

nismaratwork

The latter is only true if they have a host to follow instructions and replicate. Ever see a "brick" of amplified Ebola?... not exactly alive if you take it out of its element.

Anyway, as the beginning of this thread proposed self-replicating machines, viruses are simply not included, de facto.

Lievo

Sure! But why do you think it can change?

Grimstone

I believe the answer to that would be skirting the definitions between alive and sentient.

To be alive, would not the subject need to be sentient as well?

Grimstone

I stand on the answer of no. the robot would not be alive. as it is not sientient. you could program it to be (to a point) self aware.

but you have me whooped on

Pythagorean

What if in the future we can control cells that already exist and give (take from) them the genes (and regulatory DNA) we want? And construct cell networks and get them to differentiate and reproduce in our own novel way? Then start selecting for human usefulness (while still experimenting with bio-engineering)?

DanP

Ah eugenics :P Hitler was a big fan.

nismaratwork

Everyone is a fan in theory, it's the practice that makes monsters.

Grimstone

we are not defining alive with "what if's".