What constitutes life?

I ran across something the other day while reading about the search for artificial life. Basically, it said that philosophers and scientists can't agree on what constitutes life. In other words, how do you classify something as "living"?

Just so we don't go down the pro-life/pro-choice line, let's assume that anything we discuss must be out of the womb or whatever.

The book I was reading was about cellular automata (simulated computer life). There are actually computer "creatures" that can learn, eat, reproduce and have wars. The only difference between them and us is that they're stuck behind a computer monitor.

So what does everybody think? Can we produce life insilica? Would this qualify as a living thing? If not, what does?

 

Ain't touching this one.

 

My definition: if it can be irritated, it's alive.

This thread shows me that I'm alive.

 

Yeah, but can the computers fart? My favorite is the crop duster, drop a silent bomb walking by a big crowd of people then having them blame each other THAT is the ultimate meaning to life...can you break wind? More importantly...does GOD break wind? If so, how bad would that smell? That's not blasphemous is it?

 

staying on topic, and in my uneducated opinion:

life would have to be self-sustaining....be able to reproduce, feed themselves, be a race.

computers are not self sustaining. they require us to power them up and write their programs.

 

The computers aren't self-sustaining, but the computer created beings are. That's what's so fascinating about it. They behave similar to other creatures. As I said, they learn, feed, reproduce and some models even show the "creatures" as grouping with others like themselves (they made different colored "creatures" and the pinks grouped with pinks). That's not an allusion to homosexuality either so don't start

Sorry, I just thought it was interesting and really didn't mean it to be controversial. That's why I put the restriction on it that life must be out of the womb.

Slow, sorry to irritate you. Take it as a sign of growth

 

nope. disagree with you on the computer things being self sustaining.

unless i am misunderstanding these 'things' they still need the computer to survive, and the computer still needs power. couldn't be considered a race.

 

STOP DODGING MY QUESTIONS!!!!! But can computer beings let a cyber poot - andddd can they smell it in their cyber world???? Sorry, i'm in a good goofy mood because i figured out how to use some aspects of dreamweaver so i can finally dump publisher (pure cyber poo)

 

That's a good point. I hadn't thought of it like that really.

How bout if they took the algorithms that make up the creatures and transfer it to robots that make their own power? What's your take on that one?

 

No no no...you guys have it all wrong...it comes down to individual awareness...do these little computer bugs know they're alive or responding in a preprogrammed format???

 

as long as it passes these tests:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=life

 

Life begets life. If whatever you're calling into question cannot create life that of which is a reflection/reproduction of itself, then it is not living.

 

imo, if you unplug the computer all you are doing is removing the conditions for life. no different than taking away oxygen from humans. I vote yes. Consciousness/self-awareness, that is a completely different thing, and not a requirement for life.

 

and if "life" raced 12 years like me, clumsy with slow reflexes, it aches really bad in the morning

 

I would make it a requirement for something to be tangible, have a physical presence to qualify for consideration. Do these things have a physical existence inside the computer?

If I consider them to be living, I can also create life inside my head. Obviously, my requirement would not be considered valid by anyone who believes in God. Well, I think. My opinion may change after I actually think about the question.

 

Simply, to be a living organism (or previously living) an organism must posess basic genetic information ie. DNA, RNA or at least a combination of bases.

 

Good thing you put RNA in there, otherwise you would be excluding a whole class of viruses, and they get jealous easily too.

Depending on who you talk to, some will argue that a virus is non-living carrier of genetic protien, discuss ...

 

Well, can a virus be killed?

 

I told my buddies a school back in 91 we will have AI where it can not be detected as an AI by the year 2025. Will that be intelligent life if it happens???

ps about the belief in God what does making living things have to do with God other then he has already done it. If we do it even if we use a different method does that diminish God?? There are a lot of things God can do that we also can do.

 

The only drugs I know of that are used to treat viral infections don't directly affect the virus itself, that is to denature (change its molecular structure) the virus' protein coat, which is what a lot of anti-biotics do. What they do is cause a change in the subject patient's cell wall that either prevents the virus from actually attaching itself and injecting genetic material into the cytoplasm - or - in the case of retro-viruses like HIV, drugs prevents certain enzymes that are used to transcribe viral RNA into DNA that is then inserted into the host cell's own DNA.

Again, none of this stuff destroys the virus itself, they just prevents it from replicating. Now here's a kicker, some people are inherently immune to certain viruses, HIV included, since they lack the very proteins that a virus must use to attach and gain access to the cytoplasm of the host cell. In other words, you could be a carrier but not be affected by it.