Can a robot be called as Living thing?

[DaveC426913]

Despite the interesting discussion above, there is several evidences that the recognition of a living form does not depend on some theoretical conceptions about what it is to be biologic. In fact, it's a neurological function involving a specific area at the temporo-occipito-parietal junction (the biological movement area).

In other words, the principles exposed by many do not come first. First we recognize some living forms using some hard-wired function we shared as human, then we find some features that are shared by all known living forms, then we pontificate about living forms needing to follow what we define as necessary to be a living form.

Virus are a good exemple. Once upon a time it was quite common to exclude it as living form. Since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimivirus" has been evidenced, many biologist become increasingly ill-at-ease with the traditional view, so the traditionnal view is progressively questionned and will maybe be changed for something else. And then we will pontificate according to the new definition.

So regarding the initial question, I'd guess that if robots can activate our hard-wired sense of a living form by displaying the appropriate behavior, yes they can.

I find it difficult to follow the train of thought above, but I think the gist is that "life is in the eye of the behoolder".

 

[thorium1010]

Despite the interesting discussion above, there is several evidences that the recognition of a living form does not depend on some theoretical conceptions about what it is to be biologic. In fact, it's a neurological function involving a specific area at the temporo-occipito-parietal junction (the biological movement area).

Responding to this paragraph, if i read it correctly. You are defining a complex living form, not defining what is living or not. In biology definitions are very difficult, because you always find something that does not fit the entire definition but still exhibits a few properties of life (for ex : virus). So definition of life is as complex as life itself . To borrow from BOBZE,

Most biologists would classify life based loosely on the 5 principles of "biology";

1. Ability to reproduce with fidelity
2. Cell is the smallest unit
3. Convert energy from one for to another
4. Regulate internal environment
5. Evolve

I think this is broad enough definition of life.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Responding to this paragraph, if i read it correctly. You are defining a complex living form, not defining what is living or not. In biology definitions are very difficult, because you always find something that does not fit the entire definition but still exhibits a few properties of life (for ex : virus). So definition of life is as complex as life itself . To borrow from BOBZE,
I think this is broad enough definition of life.

Definitions like this are ones of convenience, which is fine; but they are subject to change and don't give any insights as to the connections between "living" systems and evolving natural processes over time or at different levels of scale

By including evolution in your definition, you are assuming this is fundamental. It is fundamental in nature over astronomical time periods but it isn't really a notable characteristic of life over intermediate time periods. Prokaryotes have not really evolved structurally in any significant way for about 3.5 billion years and they represent most of the Earth's biomass. For most of the Earth's existence prokaryotes were the only form of life on earth.

Your definition would categorically exclude self-replicating nanobots which would contain (mutable) information storage (that would allow for self-replication) because they are not made of cells. In any case, what kind of cells are you talking about?

 

[thorium1010]

Your definition would categorically exclude self-replicating nanobots which would contain (mutable) information storage (that would allow for self-replication) because they are not made of cells. In any case, what kind of cells are you talking about?

well a cell is a basic functioning unit in nature. I t interacts with environment, derives energy, maintains its internal environment and capable of self replication. yes nanobots does not fall under this definition.

The cell is the functional basic unit of life. It was discovered by Robert Hooke and is the functional unit of all known living organisms. It is the smallest unit of life that is classified as a living thing, and is often called the building block of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28biology%29"

By including evolution in your definition, you are assuming this is fundamental. It is fundamental in nature over astronomical time periods but it isn't really a notable characteristic of life over intermediate time periods. Prokaryotes have not really evolved structurally in any significant way for about 3.5 billion years and they represent most of the Earth's biomass. For most of the Earth's existence prokaryotes were the only form of life on earth.

Yes anything falling under the definition of life should evolve (however long that maybe). we cannot define life over intermediate period, it simply does not make sense .Regarding prokaryotes, what do we know about the precursors of eukaryote, it might well have been prokaryotes (so they did evolve ). Still how do we know prokaryote are the same as they were 3.5 billion years ago ?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

well a cell is a basic functioning unit in nature. I t interacts with environment, derives energy, maintains its internal environment and capable of self replication. yes nanobots does not fall under this definition.

Well, I agree nanobots, as I described them, would do not fall under the definition of a "living thing" (staying with the topic) as you described it. But is this definition helpful or even make sense? What about mitochondria? Are they alive? Leukocytes are alive but erythrocytes are not? What about multinuclear giant cells which do not follow the usual pattern of mitosis? What is your definition of a living cell? Are seeds and spores cells? Are they alive? Are spermatozoa alive?

 

[Lievo]

I find it difficult to follow the train of thought above, but I think the gist is that "life is in the eye of the behoolder".

Sorry the english was very bad. In fact, I'm there to improve it. :shy:

You are defining a complex living form, not defining what is living or not.

More precisely, I'm stating that our definition of life comes from a specialized neurological function. We all have a fusiform face area that make us feel that something is a face. We all have a biological motion area that make us feel that something is alive. So robots are not supposed to be alive according to most common definition. But if we see one that can activate our biological motion area strongly, chances are that we will just change our definition.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sorry the english was very bad. In fact, I'm there to improve it. :shy:

It's not your English; it's the logic.

More precisely, I'm stating that our definition of life comes from a specialized neurological function. We all have a fusiform face area that make us feel that something is a face. We all have a biological motion area that make us feel that something is alive. So robots are not supposed to be alive according to most common definition. But if we see one that can activate our biological motion area strongly, chances are that we will just change our definition.

It sounds to me like you're saying we just can't trust our rationality. We see what we want to see. If this were true, it would apply to any area of scientific observation. The universe is built the way it is because that's what we expect to see.

 

[Lievo]

It's not your English; it's the logic.

Sure. Thank you for the correction.

It sounds to me like you're saying we just can't trust our rationality. We see what we want to see. If this were true, it would apply to any area of scientific observation. The universe is built the way it is because that's what we expect to see.

Here you mix several interesting topics that deserve carefull scritinization. However, it's definately not what I was talking about, so let's keep that for another thread.

Maybe a straigth way to see my point is to replace life by color. Usually people think that a specific color is a light with some specific wavelength (or a specific energy distribution among frequencies). That's false. A specific color is what your brain decide to be this color. Does saying that has anything to do with rationality or science? Not at all! Look at this:

When I say that the brain decide what is the color, I'm not saying anything more that: top and bottom circles are not the same color, despite it's physically made of the very same light. If you never saw this picture before and you was believing in a strict association between color and spectral properties, then you'd have define these two circles as having the same color... which would obviously make no sense.

So, to me that's the same with robot and life. If you define life as being made of cells or with the five principles or whatever, you're at risk to one day face something that will force you to change your definition. And I'd even pretend this already occurred for many biologists the first time they faced a mimivirus.

 

[thorium1010]

Well, I agree nanobots, as I described them, would do not fall under the definition of a "living thing" (staying with the topic) as you described it. But is this definition helpful or even make sense? What about mitochondria? Are they alive?

well that's what i said, definition of life is very difficult. But we are rational beings in the sense that we can distinguish what is living or not living. The definition maybe superficial and when we go into depth or start finding things that do not fit perfectly into the definition, we either alter it or say there are exceptions.

mitochondria are organelle. Can they function independent of the cell ?

 

[Pythagorean]

Maybe a straigth way to see my point is to replace life by color. Usually people think that a specific color is a light with some specific wavelength (or a specific energy distribution among frequencies). That's false. A specific color is what your brain decide to be this color. Does saying that has anything to do with rationality or science? Not at all! Look at this:

A couple things I want to point out:

1) We can test the light objectively to see it's not the same color. We also know that, a lot of the time, our subjective measurement matches the objective measurement. Furthermore, it's difficult for somebody with all the properly functioning visual processors and receptors to mistake blue for red. It's only shades that are difficult to determine and only in specific conditions, which leads to:

2) We might understand why it is that we see like this by objectively understanding evolution. It's an obvious evolutionary advantage to be able to see hidden predators to avoid as well as hidden resources to hunt/gather. This visual processing can foil many camouflaging attempts in nature. In the end, the "flawed" micro-information actually provides more macro-information. (So you lose some information about the shade, but you gain information about your survivability in the environment, which otherwise would have gone unnoticed)

 

[Lievo]

1) We can test the light objectively to see it's not the same color.

I'm sorry, but no you can't. What you can do (and this is actually how XYZ color space was established) is to test the reaction of the brain to some light in some specific condition. If, from that experiment, you conclude that color is a property of light, then you'll come to make wrong predictions.

it's difficult for somebody with all the properly functioning visual processors and receptors to mistake blue for red.

For anyone with all the usual proprely functionning visual processors and receptors, it's very easy to see the very same light as http://www.colorcube.com/illusions/chrmadptb.htm" . Blue instead of red can be done the same way.

2) We might understand why it is that we see like this by objectively understanding evolution.

Sure. The fact that the properties of the light is not enough to know the color doesn't mean this escape physical laws. This just mean that what you really need to define color is to know how the brain construct this perception.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm sorry, but no you can't.

Of course you can. The key word was "objective", as in: not subject to the whims of the brain's interpretation.

The most obvious way of doing it is to use an instrument, such as a color densitometer.

But you could still do it (at least roughly) with your eye the same way you do any objective test: isolate the subject from background noise and other interfering variables. You could physically cut the two swatches away from their background and hold thenm side-by-side and see that they are the same (within your limits of perception).


Point of order (clarification): 'what colour is the swatch?' was proposed as analagous to: 'is it alive'. We are on a tangent, discussing whether or not the two questions are analogous. The first can be determined objectively, the second is still under debate.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Point of order (clarification): 'what colour is the swatch?' was proposed as analagous to: 'is it alive'. We are on a tangent, discussing whether or not the two questions are analogous. The first can be determined objectively, the second is still under debate.

If we accept that a defining characteristic of living things is being composed of cells, then there is no debate. Robots are not, and most likely will never be made of cells (at least not entirely in the biological sense). This whole thread is meaningless (or trivial) unless we view living systems in the larger context of systems generally and define what the special characteristics of living systems are in reference to systems in general.

 

[Lievo]

The key word was "objective", as in: not subject to the whims of the brain's interpretation.

So you're predicting that, assuming the same background, two identical lights will always be perceived as the same color.

Out of random curiosity, how many wrong prediction do you need before considering seriously that the physicalist point-of view you adopt lack soundness?
Sire, I don't want to be rude in anyway, but the fact is... I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to explain.

 

[Lievo]

If we accept that a defining characteristic of living things is being composed of cells, then there is no debate.

Sure. Still there would be at least one debate: is it a sound definition?

 

[Pythagorean]

I'm sorry, but no you can't. What you can do (and this is actually how XYZ color space was established) is to test the reaction of the brain to some light in some specific condition. If, from that experiment, you conclude that color is a property of light, then you'll come to make wrong predictions.

You're missing the point. There's an objective measurement of light that we call "color" based on its frequency. Not arguable. This is what I mean by objective color.

Human perception of color can be related directly to it by (for example) the cone sensitivity functions.

Thus, we have a bridge between objective definitions of light and human perception of light.

For anyone with all the usual proprely functionning visual processors and receptors, it's very easy to see the very same light as http://www.colorcube.com/illusions/chrmadptb.htm" . Blue instead of red can be done the same way.

Do you recognize the contradiction here? You're talking about light objectively. You're saying "somebody can see blue as red". That only makes sense if blue is objectively blue. Otherwise you may as well just claim solipsism.

But I concede that you can construct experiments where we see red and blue; your demonstration of this has proved by main point, though.

Sure. The fact that the properties of the light is not enough to know the color doesn't mean this escape physical laws. This just mean that what you really need to define color is to know how the brain construct this perception.

Which we already have a good start on understanding (I mentioned the cone sensitivity functions. Understanding the processing is still under way and has been productive).

 

[Lievo]

You're missing the point. There's an objective measurement of light that we call "color" based on its frequency. Not arguable. This is what I mean by objective color.

I promise I perfectly see your point, which is that we can objectively test the spectral properties of the light and call that objective color. All what I'm saying is that you'd better call that spectral properties. Because if you put color in the name, you will soon confound it with color, which is not the same, and that will soon make you doing wrong predictions -as the two I evidenced above.

we have a bridge between objective definitions of light and human perception of light.

Of course we have -in some specific conditions. What you would need to say, if you want to remain both objective and right while talking about color, is the following:

Given the spectral properties of this light, it's color match a specific combination of three monochromatic lights adjusted in brightness, assuming both are presented to an average quiete human on each side of his/her visual field by using two circular split screens 2 degrees in size with a black background.

This would be absolutly true, not arguable, and color. Now each time you go outside of these specific experimental conditions, you need to question if your colorimeter is still well calibrated in regard to color -of course this won't be necessary if what interests you is the spectral properties of the light.

Do you recognize the contradiction here? You're talking about light objectively. You're saying "somebody can see blue as red".

What I meant was you can see the very same light as blue or red. I think you stretching my sentence here. However, I recognize that the physicalist point-of-view is very easy to take. So maybe you'll notice some occasion on which I'll do the mistake, but that's not to say it's not a mistake ;-)

we already have a good start on understanding (I mentioned the cone sensitivity functions. Understanding the processing is still under way and has been productive).

Of course we have! How do you think I was able to find the evidences above if not from knowledge about color perception?

BTW... if I need to develop the idea again and again, then obviously the metaphor was of no help. I suggest we either stop here or continue the discussion in another thread. ;)

 

[binbots]

I was actually thinking about this question the other day. But I came at it from a different view. If we lived in space on a space ship, would that spaceship not be apart of us just as much as cells are apart of us? With out this ship we will die, and it is this relationship that makes it alive. If this ship one day became self aware it would see us building it and taken care of it. Just like we see our cells doing for us. I heard somewhere that everytime we use a tool our brain does not know the difference between the tool and your hand.
If we lived on Mars and had to wear space suits, those space suits are as real as our skin. I know this is a crack pot idea but I think our idea of what is alive and what is not is a lot more blurry than we think. The fact that our technology seems to mirror so much of our biology could mean that it is still our cells that are in charge and we (humans) are just one step in a grand machine. We are just a gap between biological and mechanical.

 

[DaveC426913]

With out this ship we will die, and it is this relationship that makes it alive.

That does not make it alive.

If we lived on Mars and had to wear space suits, those space suits are as real as our skin.

"Real" or no, they are not part of our biological system.

I know this is a crack pot idea but I think our idea of what is alive and what is not is a lot more blurry than we think.

Yes. No.


You are making the mistake of thinking a metaphorical similarity (a space suit is a skin) is equivalent to two things being the same (the Moon is a baleful eye).

 

[Grimstone]

The basis of the definition of life is:
- it eats and excretes
- respirates
- grows
- reproduces
- reacts to stimuli

There's all sorts of nuancing but it starts with those.

Ok, I know this is going to ask you to stretch here, but.
Data on star treck was an android
who could eat and excrete.
could breath (movement to simulate)

breath deep and read on.

It would be wrong of us to ONLY look for life as we know it and suspect something that is not like us, is not alive.
There are by percentage alone to many stars in the milky way alone that could "have life" and then when you consider each galaxy and the sheer number of them.

It becomes obvious that man would be totally arrogant to assume that his form alone is the only possible option. we have found life at the bottom of the ocean that feed off the thermal heat that would crispy critter us.
I understand your definition of life, its very humanist of you. but remember, we are 1. creation: made after our maker. 2. evolved: due to the stimuli of our environment.
what we are today, and will be in the future.

 

[Grimstone]

sorry forgot this.
http://gizmodo.com/5704158/nasa-finds-new-life
so I'm not just spouting my thoughts.

 

[Lievo]

http://gizmodo.com/5704158/nasa-finds-new-life
so I'm not just spouting my thoughts.

I do agree with your view, and I have advocate why. But please don't put this in support of it: the probability of ******** is one the highest I saw published in a peer-review paper.

 

[DaveC426913]

Data on star treck was an android
who could eat and excrete.
could breath (movement to simulate)

Yes. According to our definition, Data (on Star Trek ) is not alive.

Also, I'm not sure if he eats and excretes for real, or if he only simulates these activities.
Also, he does not grow (except mentally).

And most importantly, he cannot reproduce. Data is an artifact; he was constructed and there is no method for making a reproduction of himself (not even his creator - though he could (and did) manually reconstruct another).

Data is a machine - a very life-like one - but a machine nonetheless.

Note that "looking for Datas" on distant planets would be equivalent to looking for alien technology like buildings or spaceships on distant planets. What we want to find is Data's creators - that's seeking life.

 

[DaveC426913]

sorry forgot this.
http://gizmodo.com/5704158/nasa-finds-new-life
so I'm not just spouting my thoughts.

What a sensationalist article.

"...unlike anything currently living in planet Earth..."

"...a bacteria whose DNA is completely alien to what we know today, working differently than the rest of the organisms in the planet..."

"...Instead of using phosphorus, the newly discovered microorganism ... uses the poisonous arsenic for its building blocks..."

"... this breaks our ideas on how life can be created ..."

 

[thorium1010]

What a sensationalist article.

"...unlike anything currently living in planet Earth..."

"...a bacteria whose DNA is completely alien to what we know today, working differently than the rest of the organisms in the planet..."

"...Instead of using phosphorus, the newly discovered microorganism ... uses the poisonous arsenic for its building blocks..."

"... this breaks our ideas on how life can be created ..."

This is typical of reporting. I guess its a lesson not to take news seriously all the time (except maybe for the weather). I saw this on a another thread " PATIENT CURED OF HIV". when we go into the details, its not as one would have expected.

 

[Lievo]

This is typical of reporting.

Maybe. But, at least for this time, it's not fair to complain about reporters.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2010/12/01/science.1197258.abstract

I'm not saying we should not complain.

 

[thorium1010]

Maybe. But, at least for this time, it's not fair to complain about reporters.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2010/12/01/science.1197258.abstract

I'm not saying we should not complain.

The finding of arsenic based life is not a radical shift from what is known by biologists. The study is just that life is able to adapt even in hostile conditions. This does not in anyway change the definition or what we call life. In fact life is complex chemistry. But there are restrictions for what type of complex chemistry it can be.

 

[Lievo]

The finding of arsenic based life is not a radical shift from what is known by biologists.

I strongly disagree. Arsenic is clearly not something you could have expect to integrate DNA. This would implicates profound changes in the metabolism and even worst, in the genomic stability. So no there is no way to qualify this tentative finding as expected. The fact that this finding was not proven and is probably wrong does not make it standard.

The study is just that life is able to adapt even in hostile conditions.

I do agree we this interpretation. The fact is: we already knew it.

 

[thorium1010]

Arsenic is clearly not something you could have expect to integrate DNA. . .

I Don,t have access to the entire article . Its not exactly sure what type of molecules have substituted phosphate for arsenate.

which substitutes arsenic for phosphorus to sustain its growth. Our data show evidence for arsenate in macromolecules that normally contain phosphate, most notably nucleic acids and proteins. Exchange of one of the major bioelements may have profound evolutionary and geochemical significance.

This would implicates profound changes in the metabolism and even worst, in the genomic stability

The finding only proves to show that there can be substitutes for what was thought to be the norm (rest of the chemistry remains the same like carbon, hydrogen , oxygen, nitrogen) i.e. phosphate.In fact there has been an idea by biologists that carbon can be substituted for silicon.

 

[Lievo]

Its not exactly sure what type of molecules have substituted phosphate for arsenate.

Nucleic acids refers to DNA (Desoxyribo- Nucleic Acid). It could have referred to RNA too (Ribo Nucleic Acid) but in this paper this is about DNA.

The finding only proves to show that there can be substitutes for what was thought to be the norm (rest of the chemistry remains the same like carbon, hydrogen , oxygen, nitrogen) i.e. phosphate.

For proteins, we could imagine that things would remain as usual even if some arsenate was included in some protein, for exemple the way hemoglobin includes iron. This would be new proteins, and maybe someone will find some applications so as to become richer than Bill Gate. Boring.

But not for DNA, where the arsenate would have to replace phosphate. Arsenate does not have exactly the same chemical properties as phosphate (in fact, that why it's toxic). So if you destabilize the DNA by putting arsenate instead of phosphate at some places, you can expect that will change the genomic expression: instead of a given standard mRNA, this will produce several chains or a shorter one, leading to different amino acid chains, then different proteins, and most likely no functionnal ones.

To prevent this (so that the cell survives), you have to imagine a yet completely unknown mechanism by which either the arsenate always go on non functionnnal DNA, or a mechanism able to repair these problems. In both cases, this would implicate a completely different mechanism as the ones we know, and that's why it would have been a striking result: you can't find new mechanisms regarding DNA and expect it to be boring.

In fact there has been an idea by biologists that carbon can be substituted for silicon.

This would necessitate a completely different form of life. We can imagine, but chemists are skeptical that silicon can lead to a biochemistry as rich as carbon do. Most would however agree that this statement is valid for our conditions of pressure and temperature. For an other range of pressure and temperature, let's recognize our quite complete ignorance.

 

[Grimstone]

Here's a sort of thought experiment:
If a person has a prosthetic leg, is he still human? Of course!
What if he has two prosthetic legs?
Two prosthetic legs and an artificial heart?
What if every organ is replaced with a mechanical substitute, even the brain, the contents of which are "downloaded" into a network with transistors instead of neurons?

After which gradual step is he suddenly no longer human?

the questions WAS, Life.
now the question becomes human?

once the brain is replaced. that thing is n o longer a human. it could be programed to act as human as it can but it is not human.


is it alive? debatable.

 

[Grimstone]

So we have 6 pages of highly intelligent humans talking together to come to a mutual conclusion of a question.

and the answer is?



?

 

[nismaratwork]

So we have 6 pages of highly intelligent humans talking together to come to a mutual conclusion of a question.

and the answer is?



?

Yeah, "?" sounds about right. Let's come to a consensus about whether or not a virus is alive before we start tackling absurdly complex constructions.


...What did you expect?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

This question belongs in the philosophy forum, not biology. Langauge follows reality, not the other way around.

 

[Pythagorean]

I disagree. While this is a philosophical question, I'd rather hear what biologists have to say than philosophers.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I disagree. While this is a philosophical question, I'd rather hear what biologists have to say than philosophers.

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]

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.

in theory they could, in practice they don't

I'm just giving my opinion.

me too

We've already had over 80 posts and gotten nowhere.

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 believe 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]

I don't believe we can AFFORD to believe 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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

his question belongs in the philosophy forum, not biology. Langauge follows reality, not the other way around.

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]

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).

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]

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.

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]

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.

Sure! But why do you think it can change?

 

[Grimstone]

Sure! But why do you think it can change?

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]

Can a self replicating, or self growing robot (programmed to make logical decisions) can be called as Living thing?

If not, what is the definition of living thing?

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

If not, what is the definition of living thing?

 

[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]

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)?

Ah eugenics :P Hitler was a big fan.