marharth Posted October 9, 2011 Author Share Posted October 9, 2011 You can stick a 9 volt battery in a can of Campbell's soup and call it life all you want to. It is still not life.What is your definition of life? Mine is "an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction" Science considers bacteria and really minor things life as well based on the scientific definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kvnchrist Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 You can stick a 9 volt battery in a can of Campbell's soup and call it life all you want to. It is still not life.What is your definition of life? Mine is "an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction" Science considers bacteria and really minor things life as well based on the scientific definition. No one is intelligent enough to define life. Science merely pokes at it like a child with a stick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted October 9, 2011 Author Share Posted October 9, 2011 So your saying life can not be defined or explained by science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Let's just stick to the actual dictionary definition of life for the purposes of the debate. The Campbell's soup definition of life is meaningless to anyone else. (especially when I think only Baxter's soup is life.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukertin Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 (edited) You can stick a 9 volt battery in a can of Campbell's soup and call it life all you want to. It is still not life.Of course a 9V battery in a can of soup is not life, the can of soup is entirely incapable of reproducing, therefore it is not life. No one is intelligent enough to define life. Science merely pokes at it like a child with a stick. science has already defined life. A thing is alive if it: 1) is capable of self-regulation (homeostasis)2) is organized (e.g., cell structure, etc.)3) is capable of metabolization, i.e., breaking down chemical matter for energy4) is capable of growth5) is adaptable to its surroundings, i.e., it evolves.6) is responsive to external stimuli7) reproduces Edited October 9, 2011 by lukertin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stars2heaven Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 You can stick a 9 volt battery in a can of Campbell's soup and call it life all you want to. It is still not life.Of course a 9V battery in a can of soup is not life, the can of soup is entirely incapable of reproducing, therefore it is not life. No one is intelligent enough to define life. Science merely pokes at it like a child with a stick. science has already defined life. A thing is alive if it: 1) is capable of self-regulation (homeostasis)2) is organized (e.g., cell structure, etc.)3) is capable of metabolization, i.e., breaking down chemical matter for energy4) is capable of growth5) is adaptable to its surroundings, i.e., it evolves.6) is responsive to external stimuli7) reproduces Let's assume for just a moment that this definition does not accurately define this hypothetical A.I. of ours. Therefore, we can't consider it "alive" really by any meaningful definition that we have. Does it not being "alive" make a difference in how we treat it? If so, why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukertin Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Therefore, we can't consider it "alive" really by any meaningful definition that we have. Does it not being "alive" make a difference in how we treat it? If so, why? No, it doesn't, because it is still an immortal entity capable of independent thought. But I think an AI could be classified as alive under that standard anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stars2heaven Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) Therefore, we can't consider it "alive" really by any meaningful definition that we have. Does it not being "alive" make a difference in how we treat it? If so, why? No, it doesn't, because it is still an immortal entity capable of independent thought. But I think an AI could be classified as alive under that standard anyway. I appreciate your determination here, but you left out a key sentence in my post. The part about "let's assume". I wasn't making an argument of any kind, nor saying anything about the nature of this thing and whether it is alive or not. To put it plainly let's take Premise 1 (The hypothetical A.I. is not alive) and grant it as true. Next, let's try to find out how the truth of that premise leads us to a conclusion about how we ought to treat this thing. So Premise 1: A.I. is not alive = true (remember this is an assumption)Premise 2-n: ???Conclusion: We should treat the A.I. as ???? Edited October 10, 2011 by stars2heaven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Therefore, we can't consider it "alive" really by any meaningful definition that we have. Does it not being "alive" make a difference in how we treat it? If so, why? No, it doesn't, because it is still an immortal entity capable of independent thought. But I think an AI could be classified as alive under that standard anyway. I appreciate your determination here, but you left out a key sentence in my post. The part about "let's assume". I wasn't making an argument of any kind, nor saying anything about the nature of this thing and whether it is alive or not. To put it plainly let's take Premise 1 (The hypothetical A.I. is not alive) and grant it as true. Next, let's try to find out how the truth of that premise leads us to a conclusion about how we ought to treat this thing. So Premise 1: A.I. is not alive = true (remember this is an assumption)Premise 2-n: ???Conclusion: We should treat the A.I. as ???? I am thinkin' that we need to sort out the definition of "alive" here, and just what constitutes another 'being'. If it is self-aware, does that not imply at least some form of "life"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ffa1mf Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) Sorry - triple post somehow Edited October 10, 2011 by ffa1mf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now