Life and non-life

[Ten Letters]

Why do we go about considering some things as living and some things as non-living ?
Let us start from humans. We consider our selves as living, then animals, also living.. plants, the same.. then we delve deeper and we have bacteria and cells.. then we get to the macro/micro and sub-atomic particles which are... dead. Why is that ? Why do we say that molecules and atoms (from which everything is presumably made of) are non-living things ?
The correct logical position we have to start from is that everything is alive in some sense, unless a reason for it to not be so is given.
So what is the reason for considering molecules and atoms as non living while bacteria as living ? What is the sufficient reason given for this divide ?
Is it because particles do not express any living qualities ?
Well, what is the definition of life ?

The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/life
Organisms are made up of inanimate matter, ergo matter is where life originates from.
We now have the contradictory statement that life originates from non-life. So there is an added quality of "life" given to a group of particles which lack the quality at an individual level.
One "explanation" for this is emergence, which simply states that there are qualities which appear in certain organisms that are not present in its parts.
The statement is made that qualities simply pop out of.. well nowhere, and that they go away when the organism "dies".. as mysteriously as they came.
Does that sound reasonable ?
Not to me at least, so that is why I will consider particles as living.

Now I offer the following model:
1. The Laws of Existence
2. Empirically undetectable "particles" ( souls , "nothings" ? )
3. Undiscovered particles ( ? )
4. Sub-atomic particles (quarks, leptons)
5. Particles (atoms, molecules)
6. Cells
7. Unicellular organisms (Bacteria)
8. Multicellular organisms (plants, animals, humans,)
9. Gods (the culmination of the evolution of a species, archetype; transcendental/superior beings, etc. )
10. God (the absolute culmination of evolution, the mind of the universe, the creator, etc.)

In this model we can fit the soul, the mind, the physical and non-physical world, the apex of the evolution of anything, the absolute(s), all the laws, Everything.
Now instead of trying to figure out how everything works, we ask how everything should work.
-Should everything have a reason for why it is so and not otherwise ?
-Should it be so by necessity or by contingency ?
-It there an absolute reality, an absolute truth or did everything happen for no particular reason, (by chance or accident) including the laws of existence themselves?
-Does something endure eternally in on form or another or is absolutely everything subject to change (including change itself) ?
And so on.

 

[Cognisant]

Is a machine that's sufficiently advanced to fit the definition of life a living thing?

And if not, why not?

 

[Ten Letters]

Is a machine that's sufficiently advanced to fit the definition of life a living thing?

And if not, why not?

Perhaps I was not clear enough. My point is that the current living/non-living distinction between cells and particles lacks any reason, it is simply arbitrary.
However, the most "loose" definition of life (also the logical one) is anything that has motion, and here there is no reason to exclude anything in the universe given our current knowledge of quantum mechanics.
So in this model life does not appear, it evolves from the most basic forms.
Life does not "appear" despite "inanimate matter", but because of "inanimate matter". Is that not the logical position ?

Now if everything that has motion is alive and everything in the universe is moving, is the universe moving as a whole ?
-If yes, in respect to what ?
-If not, then is it dead ?
Does movement require something objectively external to the thing moving, such as the distance between point A and B.

This is similar to the problem of getting something our of nothing.

 

[Cognisant]

The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

What's of interest to me is that these are functions, a machine can have functions, indeed a machine without functions is non-functioning, a broken machine, so if an organism has functions and the cessation of those functions signify its death, does that mean one could say machines are alive insofar as they are functional?

If everything is moving it seems pointless to define life as a state of movement, y'know making a corpse move dosen't bring it back to life, but if you restore the body's functions, for example resuscitating someone that has drowned by returning airflow to their lungs and a beat to their heart, then they can come back to life, indeed it's an increasingly common practice in some parts of Asia to cool the body of a deceased heart attack victim to a hypothermic state and once the body is taken to hospital they filter out carbon dioxide, then reoxygenate the blood, while rewarming the body, and with a little jolt suddenly it's a living human being again
(Cooling the body can help prevent brain damage, for a little while at least)

Is a machine that's sufficiently advanced to fit the definition of life a living thing?

And if not, why not?

Because you didn't answer me the first time.

 

[Ten Letters]

What's of interest to me is that these are functions, a machine can have functions, indeed a machine without functions is non-functioning, a broken machine, so if an organism has functions and the cessation of those functions signify its death, does that mean one could say machines are alive insofar as they are functional?

Perhaps you mean if we can say that a machine is alive as an individual entity, like an animal or a human and not just an artificial organism made for different purposes like a soda filling machine, we've done that through cloning and DNA manipulation.
Our bodies are organisms made up of smaller organisms, programed with the staggeringly complex DNA code.
The problem here is why.
-Why is such a complex organism able to act as if it were a single entity ( sometimes multiple ) ?
--And is it sufficient to organize the basic particles in order to obtain an organism able to act as a singular mind?
-Is it because there is a life form that controls the entire organism ?
-Is the organism simply following it's programing like a computer ?
--Is consciousness an error or the correct program ?

 

[WookieeB]

Is a machine that's sufficiently advanced to fit the definition of life a living thing?

And if not, why not?

If the definition of life is the qualities "metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. ", I'd say YES.

Things that are generally agreed upon as being alive are often referred to or analogized as "machines".

But aside from known living things, so far anything else that is referred to as a "machine" has not become 'sufficiently advanced to fit the definition of life'.

I suppose the most advanced (non-living) machines today would have to be computers, but even today they probably don't meet the growth or reproduction requirements. It may be that someday they will be developed enough to attain those capabilities, but there not there yet.

I find it interesting that all living things follow a set of instructions set within themselves, which would be DNA and as yet undiscovered biological systems. Having an instruction set might be another factor to add to the LIFE definition. Again thinking of computers, they would be the closest machines to get to the definition of life, and they have their instructions as software. But take a different machine, like a blender, probably no matter how advanced you get it, it would likely never fit the life definition, and there is nothing inherent about a blender that has it following an instruction set. Hmm, think I'm still a little fuzzy on this idea.

But then think of the cell. Assuming we all agree the cell is alive, what about the parts of a cell, many of which are often referred to as "machines". Though many of the cellular "machines" do have function, and move around, I wouldn't consider them individually as alive. They do have metabolism and respond to stimuli, but I don't think they fit the growth or reproductive requirements in themselves, so they individually are not alive. I would place everything below a "Cell" in the OP list in the same boat, and thus not life.

 

[Cognisant]

The problem here is why.
-Why is such a complex organism able to act as if it were a single entity ( sometimes multiple ) ?
--And is it sufficient to organize the basic particles in order to obtain an organism able to act as a singular mind?
-Is it because there is a life form that controls the entire organism ?

*bursts out in uncontrollable laughter*

Oooooh man, I've been down this road before a few times so lemme tell you how it's going to go down, you're trying to justify god/gods/souls and I'm going to deconstruct whatever justification you make, which you'll note we've already been doing (it's a cyclical thing). You're now trying to put me on the defensive by asking me questions that frankly we both know I don't have the answers for, hoping I'll say something stupid or at least validate the possibility of god/gods/souls/whatever by admitting that I can't conclusively explain why they don't exist (kudos for trying that btw) except I'm well practiced at deconstructing such subjectivism as well, so this conversation will end up right back where it started (as I said, it's cyclical).

Here's where I agree with you, the definition of life is arbitrary, which makes sense given that like all meaning it's contrived, we say things are either living or dead but as far as the universe is concerned it's just matter, energy, physics, mechanics, chemistry, and y'know so and so forth; basically things are what they are and there's no worthwhile reason to think otherwise.

But people are sentimental creatures, we invented spirits to explain the wind in the trees, gods to explain where everything came from and why things are the way they are, even souls for ourselves to ward off the existential angst of our historically finite lives.

Now you're trying to justify this magical thinking, it's quaint, even adorable, but frankly I think you need to grow up, there is no Santa, no spirits in the trees, the existence of a god or gods creates more questions than answers and in any cause they clearly want us to be atheists or just don't care to be a part of our lives (being of questionable existence and all), and finally what is the soul?

To explain what the soul is one must explain the function of a soul, but to explain it one must understand it and anything that can be understood can be replicated, and so we get back to the question I keep asking, is a machine (something built by man) that performs the requisite functions alive? Indeed in regard to the function of a soul is this machine a person?

So here's my conclusion, justify whatever voodoo you want, regardless if it exists it can be explained and if it can be explained then it's not magic, and if we dispense with magical thinking we're left to wonder, why? Out of all the matter and energy in the universe why do we have souls, why should our existence be somehow transcendent, why must there be more than life as the embodiment of function that ends, totally, with death?

And the only answer that makes sense is that we want it that way.

But why should the universe give a damn about what we want?

Of course this doesn't prove anything, the fact of the matter is neither of us can conclusively answer the big questions, but personally I look around and I see a world of mysteries and behind every mystery I've solved thus far there's the same thing, an answer, and it's not magic.

I can't force you to stop entertaining magical thoughts, but I advise you to stop, reality may not be what you want it to be but it's not going away either, and you've only got one life, if you KNEW death was absolute would you live it any differently?

 

[Wolf18]

Why do we go about considering some things as living and some things as non-living ?
Well, what is the definition of life ?

I came up with a definition with my friend: (My friend's) To live is to need. If you are not alive, you do not need, and if you are alive, you do need. Life, a bit more morbidly (my half) is, quite simply, resistance to decomposition. Everything is always decomposing, from radioactive half-lives to sour milk. Elements, food, corpses, and other non-living things are always decomposing. However, living things work to avoid that decomposition. It adapts to change, and strives to feed itself and reproduce. These are its needs. By working to avoid decomposition, it satisfies its needs. Thus, the 2 definitions coincide.

What do you think?

SW

 

[Cognisant]

I think it's brilliant.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Is a machine that's sufficiently advanced to fit the definition of life a living thing?

And if not, why not?

Life is machinery.