What's the smallest thing that can be alive?

  • Thread starter Math Is Hard
  • Start date
In summary: in summary, he's saying that our intuitive concepts are actually instantiated in the brain in a way that is resistant to precise definition.
  • #1
Math Is Hard
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,652
37
What is the smallest, simplest thing that can be considered to be "alive"?
Bacteria, maybe? A computer virus?
I would like to hear your thoughts on this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I Think Its Obvious, A Single Celled Organism
 
  • #3
Tell me why you chose this over a computer virus. Thanks.
 
  • #4
Current computers cannot reach the nano scale of mitochondria and viruses, so computer viruses don't measure up... or down as the case may be.

The definition of living things is debatable, so exactly what you might consider alive and dead is up for grabs. Viruses are considered somewhere in the middle, between alive and dead. When dormant, they are considered dead. They can't move around on their own, they can't reproduce on their own, and theoretically they can last for millions of years. Are they alive or merely so many interesting chemical reactions?
 
  • #5
Maybe I can clarify. If something can be categorized as alive, what requirements must be met?
I am thinking:
1) Must contain an instruction set for its own survival
2) Must contain an instruction set to reproduce
 
  • #6
Sorry - we posted at the same time. I just saw your argument, wuliheron. I like it.
 
  • #7
To expand a bit on what wuliheron said, life is in an intuitive, fuzzy concept. This is what allows exact definitions to be debatable, and also what allows us to consider something like a virus somewhere inbetween. We can contrive various exacting, rigorous definitions to try to capture our intuition, but really the important thing to take home is that the intuition preceeds the definition.

In actuality, many (if not most) of our categorical concepts tend to work this way. Here's an excerpt from Steven Pinker's How the Mind Works that may be illuminating.

An intelligent being cannot treat every object it sees as a unique entity unlike anything else in the universe. It has to put objects in categories so that it may apply its hard-won knowledge about similar objects, encountered in the past, to the object at hand.

But whenever one tries to program [define]* a set of criteria to capture the members of a category, the category disintegrates. Leaving aside slippery concepts like "beauty" or "dialectical materialism," let's look at a textbook example of a well-defined one: "bachelor." A bachelor, of course, is simply an adult human male who has never been married. But now imagine that a friend asks you to invite some bachelors to her party. What would happen if you used the definition to decide which of the following people to invite?

- Arthur has been living happily with Alice for the last five years. They have a two-year-old daughter and have never officially married.

- Bruce was going to be drafted, so he arranged with his friend Barbara to have a justice of the peace marry them so he would be exempt. They have never lived together. He dates a number of women, and plans to have the marriage annulled as soon as he finds someone he wants to marry.

- Charlie is 17 years old. He lives at home with his parents and is in high school.

- David is 17 years old. He left home at 13, started a small business, and is now a successful young entrepreneur leading a playboy's lifestyle in his penthouse apartment.

- Eli and Edgar are homosexual lovers who have been living together for many years.

- Faisal is allowed by the law of his native Abu Dhabi to have three wives. He currently has two and is interested in meeting another potential fiancée.

- Father Gregory is the bishop of the Catholic cathedral at Groton upon Thames.

The list, which comes from the computer scientist Terry Winograd, shows that the straightforward definition of "bachelor" does not capture our intuitions about who fits the category.

* I inserted the bracketed term here for clarity
 
Last edited:
  • #8
i guess the smallest, simplest thing that IS alive is our earth. if you think beyond the boundaries, Earth is a microcosm in the endless universe. It is the simplest because just 2 things on Earth are sufficient to aid life, water and oxygen. Probably presence of human emotion complicates the issue!
 
  • #9
Hyp - that's so bizarre that you referenced the Pinker book. I have been sort of lazily perusing this book in the evenings before I go to sleep. I am going to look into these pieces. (Maybe this is what got me started on this topic subconsciously).
Thanks!
 
  • #10
That's funny, I'm actually in the process of reading that book myself. :smile: If you haven't reached it yet, Pinker goes into a nice account of how this kind of fuzzy thinking / categorizing might be instantiated in the neural circuitry of the brain about 100 pages in (I was going to say "in the middle of chapter 2," but that doesn't seem to do justice to how long these chapters are :tongue:). It's really interesting to see how such a seemingly logic-defying kind of behavior naturally emerges from a relatively simple computational setup.
 
  • #11
I have been skipping around the book a little bit, but I am going to go back and concentrate on chap 2 some more. Fuzzy logic is amusing to me because (hard) logic-defying behavior is exactly what computer programmers don't want from a program!

I became interested in his book because I plan on getting my B.S. in cognitive science. Unfortunately, it's a very unpopular major :frown:
 
  • #12
Math Is Hard said:
I have been skipping around the book a little bit, but I am going to go back and concentrate on chap 2 some more. Fuzzy logic is amusing to me because (hard) logic-defying behavior is exactly what computer programmers don't want from a program!

I became interested in his book because I plan on getting my B.S. in cognitive science. Unfortunately, it's a very unpopular major :frown:

Don't worry about cognitive science not being popular...it will soon be. But while on this course, you must pay absolute attention to the following fundamental areas:

1) THE INSTRUCTION SET THEORY

This is the theory which says that no one can viloate the number of instructions in a given computer program because the number is fixed, and therefore internally non-modifiable by the program conerned, except by an external agent such as the programmer who wrote the program, or a computer virus that might add or remove instructions from it, or another programmer commissioned to improve the original program. Your quest, therefore, must or should be to violate this theory.

MY STANDARD ARGUMENT IS THIS: Anyone who can violate this theory would make any system (computer, robbot, etc.) holding such a program not only to think, learn and understand things but also to be fully conscious.

2) THE SCOPE AND LIMITS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

By all means listen to what your tutors say, but you must unfailingly keep an open mind on this. The current commonly held belief is that (1) Consciousness is limited only to the humans, and (2) Conscousenss is something over and above the physical. Your reaserch, if you study up to that level, should concentrate in disproving both. Your research should show that not only can other things be conscious but also that, through structural re-engineering, they can get smarter and smarter. Some philosophers have gone a step further by arguing that even consciousness in a machine is not ruled out either.

MY ARGUMENT IS THIS: If (1) is disproved, then (2) is automatically disproved. Hence, if I were you I would ignore (2) and concentrate on (1), not unless something subsequently turns up for this to be construed otherwise.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
The dictionary is way too vague about what alive means.

I think fire is alive. It has the following characteristics:

It eats.
It moves.
It grows.
It reproduces.
It is compelled to survive until it no longer can.

A computer virus is attacking computers only like it's programmed to do, so it's no more alive than that stupid paperclip in Microsoft Word. I believe real viruses, like influenza, are definitely alive.

I've heard people say a colony of bees is alive (as its own single entity) but I think that's bologna.
 
  • #14
kdkdkd said:
i guess the smallest, simplest thing that IS alive is our earth. if you think beyond the boundaries, Earth is a microcosm in the endless universe. It is the simplest because just 2 things on Earth are sufficient to aid life, water and oxygen. Probably presence of human emotion complicates the issue!

I think we're much smaller than the Earth.


False Prophet said:
The dictionary is way too vague about what alive means.

I think fire is alive. It has the following characteristics:

It eats.
It moves.
It grows.
It reproduces.
It is compelled to survive until it no longer can.

A computer virus is attacking computers only like it's programmed to do, so it's no more alive than that stupid paperclip in Microsoft Word. I believe real viruses, like influenza, are definitely alive.

I've heard people say a colony of bees is alive (as its own single entity) but I think that's bologna.

Trees don't move, yet they're living things.
Definition of a living thing:
1) It can reproduce
2) It is separated by a semipermeable membrane from the rest of the world
3) Can grow
 
  • #15
Very interesting thoughts from everyone. Regarding the Instruction Set Theory, is this basically saying that the program cannot self modify and change, add or delete any of the original lines of code?

Fire is something I never would have considered. But how can this argument be knocked down? I can't come up with a good line of attack.
 
  • #16
123Rock, where is your definition from, just out of curiosity?
 
  • #17
Math Is Hard said:
Very interesting thoughts from everyone. Regarding the Instruction Set Theory, is this basically saying that the program cannot self modify and change, add or delete any of the original lines of code

Yes, in the strictest sense of self-modification. Not a program being instructed to self-modify in response to the programmer's intended intervening events. When a computer program becomes self-aware of its own internal syntactical, symantical and instruction set limititations, and begins to rewrite its internal structures and modules independent of the original programmer who wrote it, then this would amount to a proper violation of the Instruction set theory (IST). In this sense, we could say that the system in which such a program is installed is self-aware and conscious.
 
  • #18
Such programs have been written. See "genetic programming" where the instruction set is subjected to random variation and selection.
 
  • #19
Philocrat said:
In this sense, we could say that the system in which such a program is installed is self-aware and conscious.

Only if you're assuming a very impoverished sense of the word 'conscious' (ie, not the philosophically interesting sense) could you make a statement like that so flippantly. The problem of consciousness is not synonymous with the problem of a system modeling itself.
 
  • #20
Trees don't move, yet they're living things

Yes, they do move. If they grow, then surely they move [towards sunlight].
 
  • #21
Philocrat said:
Yes, in the strictest sense of self-modification. Not a program being instructed to self-modify in response to the programmer's intended intervening events. When a computer program becomes self-aware of its own internal syntactical, symantical and instruction set limititations, and begins to rewrite its internal structures and modules independent of the original programmer who wrote it, then this would amount to a proper violation of the Instruction set theory (IST). In this sense, we could say that the system in which such a program is installed is self-aware and conscious.

The manner in which one is self aware/conscious is based on a set of criterion/instructions that, in the context which you have presented, are programs. According to various studies reported in SCIAM concerning psychoanalytical theories, conscious behavior is regulated by subconscious programs or instructions. Furthermore, such subconscious motivations provide a basis to more advanced behavior.
How would a conscious being/system rewrite an instinctive instruction? To what extent do you propose a system rewrite an internal instruction?
 
  • #22
Imparcticle said:
The manner in which one is self aware/conscious is based on a set of criterion/instructions that, in the context which you have presented, are programs. According to various studies reported in SCIAM concerning psychoanalytical theories, conscious behavior is regulated by subconscious programs or instructions. Furthermore, such subconscious motivations provide a basis to more advanced behavior.
How would a conscious being/system rewrite an instinctive instruction? To what extent do you propose a system rewrite an internal instruction?

Awareness about awareness is just a set of priority visual levels. I am not a very good fan of the term 'subconscious', for deprioritised visual levels are often mistakenly qualified by this term. Things that the boby can do without the upper conscious-level visual attention are deprioritised, and self-discrimination and reprogramming in response to the intervening contents of the external world is one of such things. In terms of a computer program, I am suggesting that the instruction set be made fully dynamic. How this can be done is matter of continuous technological reviews.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
123rock said:
I think we're much smaller than the Earth.

we originated because of earth. i consider humans to be parasites. "living" doesn't quite suit us. Earth the the smallest self sufficient being in the universe we know.


123rock said:
Trees don't move, yet they're living things.
Definition of a living thing:
1) It can reproduce
2) It is separated by a semipermeable membrane from the rest of the world
3) Can grow

movement can be through the roots that penetrate the ground or the branches that spread out.
it doesn't have to be translatory motion
 
  • #24
kdkdkd said:
we originated because of earth. i consider humans to be parasites. "living" doesn't quite suit us. Earth the the smallest self sufficient being in the universe we know.
but even a parasite is a living thing. the lowly flea can have the status of being alive or being dead. same goes for bacteria and viruses.
 
  • #25
Math Is Hard said:
Tell me why you chose this over a computer virus. Thanks.
A computer virus,eh?You are probably thinking of biological viruses flying all over around us ,not the computer ones.
Yes,I consider such ones alive.
Question for others :what about prions?I don't considered them alive.Just a dangerous substance.
 
  • #26
kdkdkd said:
earth the the smallest self sufficient being in the universe we know.

Earth wouldn't be good for much at all if it weren't for the sun.
 
  • #27
zhana said:
A computer virus,eh?You are probably thinking of biological viruses flying all over around us ,not the computer ones.
Yes,I consider such ones alive.

No, I actually specifically meant a computer virus when I asked that question. It was something Stephen Hawking said in a lecture that got me thinking about this:

from http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/life.html [Broken]

"A living being usually has two elements: a set of instructions that tell the system how to sustain and reproduce itself, and a mechanism to carry out the instructions. In biology, these two parts are called genes and metabolism. But it is worth emphasising that there need be nothing biological about them. For example, a computer virus is a program that will make copies of itself in the memory of a computer, and will transfer itself to other computers. Thus it fits the definition of a living system, that I have given. Like a biological virus, it is a rather degenerate form, because it contains only instructions or genes, and doesn't have any metabolism of its own. Instead, it reprograms the metabolism of the host computer, or cell. Some people have questioned whether viruses should count as life, because they are parasites, and can not exist independently of their hosts. But then most forms of life, ourselves included, are parasites, in that they feed off and depend for their survival on other forms of life. I think computer viruses should count as life. Maybe it says something about human nature, that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. Talk about creating life in our own image. I shall return to electronic forms of life later on."

zhana said:
Question for others :what about prions?I don't considered them alive.Just a dangerous substance.
Good question.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
Math Is Hard said:
No, I actually specifically meant a computer virus when I asked that question. It was something Stephen Hawking said in a lecture that got me thinking about this:

from http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/life.html [Broken]

"A living being usually has two elements: a set of instructions that tell the system how to sustain and reproduce itself, and a mechanism to carry out the instructions. In biology, these two parts are called genes and metabolism. But it is worth emphasising that there need be nothing biological about them. For example, a computer virus is a program that will make copies of itself in the memory of a computer, and will transfer itself to other computers. Thus it fits the definition of a living system, that I have given. Like a biological virus, it is a rather degenerate form, because it contains only instructions or genes, and doesn't have any metabolism of its own. Instead, it reprograms the metabolism of the host computer, or cell. Some people have questioned whether viruses should count as life, because they are parasites, and can not exist independently of their hosts. But then most forms of life, ourselves included, are parasites, in that they feed off and depend for their survival on other forms of life. I think computer viruses should count as life. Maybe it says something about human nature, that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. Talk about creating life in our own image. I shall return to electronic forms of life later on."


Good question.

Thanks for pointing us to Hawking's lecture. A document of monumental Magnitude! It contains materials of startling consclusions and profound implications ...several of which are compatible with the catalogue of stuff that I carry around in my head. But I have a purely logical issue about his conclusion on the possibility of life in other parts of the the universe. I think, on a purely logical term (without any interference of hard-headed mathematics), the probability of life elsewhere is higher than suggested.

On the issue of why we have not yet been visited by aliens from outer space, I agree with all the likely reasons given. But a far more subtler alternative reason is not ruled out either: that they have been already, and are microscopic and superior, thus using superior technology to hold the human race on a string...like puppets on a string! Human beings are obsessed with big things, so we naively rule out this option.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
hypnagogue said:
Only if you're assuming a very impoverished sense of the word 'conscious' (ie, not the philosophically interesting sense) could you make a statement like that so flippantly. The problem of consciousness is not synonymous with the problem of a system modeling itself.

---------------------------------------------
My system crashed last night while trying to respond to you. Anyawy, here is that response, if it works this time around:
---------------------------------------------

That is only if you join the bandwagon of believing that:

1) Consciousness is mysteriously over and above the physical

2) Consciousenss is Independent by (a) merely intervening with the physical body, and (b) surviving the death of the material body.

3) Consciousnes is Functionally superior to the body

4) Consciousness is something that only human beings have.


Well, (1) - (3) are keeping members of the popular bandwagon very busy, but equally some philosophers and many researchers on the subject do not rule (4) out. Infact, there is nothing which rules out the possibility of consciousness in other intelligent systems. Computer, for example, is already an intelligent system, it's just a matter when it is going to become conscious, given that we knew what the proper definition of consciousness is in the first place.
 
  • #30
Philocrat said:
That is only if you join the bandwagon of believing that:

1) Consciousness is mysteriously over and above the physical

This is the only criterion of yours that is relevant to my post, although it is somewhat misleadingly stated. A more accurate depiction of this stance would be to say "Phenomenal consciousness does not logically supervene on the physical." The claim is not that consciousness is independent of the physical facts, but rather that a complete specification of the physical facts does not entail the existence of phenomenal consciousness. Any purely physical description of the brain is logically consistent with the absence of phenomenal consciousness. Likewise, any functional description of a self-modeling system is logically consistent with the absence of phenomenal consciousness.
 
  • #31
hypnagogue said:
This is the only criterion of yours that is relevant to my post, although it is somewhat misleadingly stated. A more accurate depiction of this stance would be to say "Phenomenal consciousness does not logically supervene on the physical." The claim is not that consciousness is independent of the physical facts, but rather that a complete specification of the physical facts does not entail the existence of phenomenal consciousness. Any purely physical description of the brain is logically consistent with the absence of phenomenal consciousness. Likewise, any functional description of a self-modeling system is logically consistent with the absence of phenomenal consciousness.

Precisely this is what has given me a lot of headache all these years. I keep an open mind, though. If logic makes such separation, there is equally a logical demand to demonstrate without any shaky foundation as to what precisely ignites the union or interaction. Logic may keep them separate as long as it likes...it cannot just hang things there in the logical space without any intention to land. It must subsequently land them on a 'QUANTITATIVELY AND LOGICALLY SOUND GROUNDS'. I for one is waiting curiously for such time!
 
  • #32
There are some distinctions that could be made here.

One is that the Earth (or Earth + Sun, or the Solar system, however one wants to define it; and also ignoring the life-from-comets theories) is the minimal system that we know that is capable of producing life using only non-living material. If you can start with an already living creature, then the simplest creature that can reproduce itself using only it's own internal processes is a bacterium, though even a bacterium, of course, requires appropriate nutrients and a non-lethal environment. In general, a bacterium is the simplest organization of matter that most biologists consider alive, though I don't remember exactly which criteria they use for this.

In the end, in order to define the simplest living thing, you first have to decide on a definition of "alive". So none of the answers given here is necessarily right or wrong—it all depends on the definition being used.
 
  • #33
Math Is Hard said:
No, I actually specifically meant a computer virus when I asked that question. It was something Stephen Hawking said in a lecture that got me thinking about this:

from http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/life.html [Broken]

"A living being usually has two elements: a set of instructions that tell the system how to sustain and reproduce itself, and a mechanism to carry out the instructions. In biology, these two parts are called genes and metabolism. But it is worth emphasising that there need be nothing biological about them. For example, a computer virus is a program that will make copies of itself in the memory of a computer, and will transfer itself to other computers. Thus it fits the definition of a living system, that I have given. Like a biological virus, it is a rather degenerate form,..

Well,certainly it depends on the definition what alive means.
Hawking is too optimistic regarding that definition and no biologist would agree with him that a computer virus is something alive,and many of them would even argue that biological ones are alive (they would tell you a viruses are "on the edge between life and death").And there's a significant difference between these two.A computer virus being immaterial,just a set of instructions.Besides ,remember that alive in the natural evolution means not just a physical form but organic too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
Philocrat said:
Precisely this is what has given me a lot of headache all these years. I keep an open mind, though. If logic makes such separation, there is equally a logical demand to demonstrate without any shaky foundation as to what precisely ignites the union or interaction. Logic may keep them separate as long as it likes...it cannot just hang things there in the logical space without any intention to land. It must subsequently land them on a 'QUANTITATIVELY AND LOGICALLY SOUND GROUNDS'. I for one is waiting curiously for such time!

'Logic' is not the culprit here, but rather, the set of axioms and laws that belong to physics.

In order for any phenomenon P to fit in with any given worldview, one must either give P an axiomatic status within that worldview or be able to derive P from previously existing axioms. Phenomenal consciousness does certainly not enjoy any kind of axiomatic or 'bottom line' status in any physical theory, so we must be able to derive it logically; we must be able to show 'if these axioms hold, then P must follow' (or more shortly, A -> P). But if A ^ ~P is logically consistent, then A -> P cannot be true. And no one has yet been able to provide even a glimmer of theoretical motivation against the proposition that the complete physical description of a human brain is logically, theoretically consistent with the absence of phenomenal consciousness.

In a nutshell, if we want phenomenal consciousness to 'land,' we must provide it with a more suitable theoretical 'perch.' In the meantime, we must recognize the crucial difference between access consciousness (a functional system of global control, 'global workspace,' etc.) and phenomenal consciousness (subjective experience, qualia, etc.). Working within the standard physical paradigm, you could make a case that a system must model itself if it is to achieve the former, but to approach the latter you must provide significantly more theoretical motivation.
 
  • #35
Math Is Hard said:
No, I actually specifically meant a computer virus when I asked that question. It was something Stephen Hawking said in a lecture that got me thinking about this:

from http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/life.html [Broken]

"A living being usually has two elements: a set of instructions that tell the system how to sustain and reproduce itself, and a mechanism to carry out the instructions. In biology, these two parts are called genes and metabolism. But it is worth emphasising that there need be nothing biological about them. For example, a computer virus is a program that will make copies of itself in the memory of a computer, and will transfer itself to other computers. Thus it fits the definition of a living system, that I have given. Like a biological virus, it is a rather degenerate form, because it contains only instructions or genes, and doesn't have any metabolism of its own. Instead, it reprograms the metabolism of the host computer, or cell. Some people have questioned whether viruses should count as life, because they are parasites, and can not exist independently of their hosts. But then most forms of life, ourselves included, are parasites, in that they feed off and depend for their survival on other forms of life. I think computer viruses should count as life. Maybe it says something about human nature, that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. Talk about creating life in our own image. I shall return to electronic forms of life later on."

I like the definition Maynard Smith offers in his book "The Origins of Life." He suggests that life is minimully that which can participate in natural selection. He points out that a fire metabolizes, crystals reproduce, and both can even be said to adapt to a limited degree . . . but neither are living. Of course "the ability to participate in natural selection" is not a proper definition of life (and it certainly doesn't tell us what "alive" is), but it is useful in the sense of how much must be included to allow the life label by that definition.

In my opinion Hawking is doing what a lot of theorists do, which is to ignore aspects of full living systems that can't be explained so they can call it "alive." If car mechanics were in charge of the definition, then they might define life as a combustion system and claim an automobile is alive. It seems everybody with a metaphysical agenda is trying to spin the facts so their belief system holds water, but if we look at life itself there is nothing fully like it except other life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
25
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
947
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Engineering and Comp Sci Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
871
Replies
41
Views
5K
  • Computing and Technology
Replies
11
Views
534
  • General Math
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
Replies
38
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
2
Replies
54
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
890
Back
Top