How Do You Define What It Means To Be "alive"?

[Lounge Daddy]

A philosophical question. The implications, in my mind, are this:

If an eternal soul determines whether an entity is alive, then naturally that would be saying that humans are the only mortal creature on this planet (or universe?) that is truly alive.

To say “breathing air,” is to say that only plant and animal life are capable of authentic life. Thus artificial life is, and will always be, just that: artificial.

If level of intelligence or even the capacity to be self-aware is the determining factor for actual life, then I argue that machines will be alive in our lifetime.

Consider this; it was reported this April that Spain is considering granting apes legal rights. Why do apes deserve legal rights and what is this based on? Because apes are maybe our evolutionary cousins? Or because apes are similar to us in appearance, or intelligent?

In perhaps 40 years machines will capable of being a lot more similar to us, and have intelligence (maybe not imagination) that far surpasses, let alone that of apes. Machines already can look like us, talk like us, act like us, and have emotional reactions as well as interpret our emotions and react accordingly. So are they alive yet? Will they be?

What are your thoughts? What are the possibilities?

[Resurrexi]

It would be the presence of any type of soul, whether immortal or not.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1617254' date='Aug 4 2008, 05:04 PM']A philosophical question. The implications, in my mind, are this:

If an eternal soul determines whether an entity is alive, then naturally that would be saying that humans are the only mortal creature on this planet (or universe?) that is truly alive.

To say "breathing air," is to say that only plant and animal life are capable of authentic life. Thus artificial life is, and will always be, just that: artificial.

If level of intelligence or even the capacity to be self-aware is the determining factor for actual life, then I argue that machines will be alive in our lifetime.

Consider this; it was reported this April that Spain is considering granting apes legal rights. Why do apes deserve legal rights and what is this based on? Because apes are maybe our evolutionary cousins? Or because apes are similar to us in appearance, or intelligent?

In perhaps 40 years machines will capable of being a lot more similar to us, and have intelligence (maybe not imagination) that far surpasses, let alone that of apes. Machines already can look like us, talk like us, act like us, and have emotional reactions as well as interpret our emotions and react accordingly. So are they alive yet? Will they be?

What are your thoughts? What are the possibilities?[/quote]

I voted "other" because plants are alive. I would define "alive" as "requiring an outside source of energy to complete at least one process", but then Michael Crichton talks about this in his book "Prey". Given this definition, machines could be alive, and I would never define a machine (robot) as "alive". They interact with us but only because we give them the power to do so. I guess that my definition then would be heavily influenced by the assumption that the Christian Trinity is God. I do not know, philosophically, how to determine that only plants and animals are alive (and exclude machines).

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1617257' date='Aug 4 2008, 05:09 PM']It would be the presence of any type of soul, whether immortal or not.[/quote]

yes.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1617257' date='Aug 4 2008, 05:09 PM']It would be the presence of any type of soul, whether immortal or not.[/quote]
Ok, then how does one determine the presence of a soul--which goes back to the original question of what determines the presence of life.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1617260' date='Aug 4 2008, 05:15 PM']I do not know, philosophically, how to determine that only plants and animals are alive (and exclude machines).[/quote]
See that's just it; I don't think we will be able to do that soon.

If the two determinants to determining if something is alive are: requiring an external resource "to complete at least one process," and the ability to reproduce; well, machines require an external resource, and the ability for machines to independently reproduce isn't far off.

[Deb]

I have been so called alive all my life. I had a soul, I could reproduce, think constructively and be productive in my community and in my job but, I was not "alive."
I came alive when I began to know Jesus Christ. The in-dwelling and activity of the Holy Spirit in me brought me to life. Everything before that was only an illusion. The more the Lord works in me, the more alive I become. All is relative to God.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1617254' date='Aug 4 2008, 04:04 PM']A philosophical question. The implications, in my mind, are this:

If an eternal soul determines whether an entity is alive, then naturally that would be saying that humans are the only mortal creature on this planet (or universe?) that is truly alive.

To say “breathing air,” is to say that only plant and animal life are capable of authentic life. Thus artificial life is, and will always be, just that: artificial.

If level of intelligence or even the capacity to be self-aware is the determining factor for actual life, then I argue that machines will be alive in our lifetime.

Consider this; it was reported this April that Spain is considering granting apes legal rights. Why do apes deserve legal rights and what is this based on? Because apes are maybe our evolutionary cousins? Or because apes are similar to us in appearance, or intelligent?

In perhaps 40 years machines will capable of being a lot more similar to us, and have intelligence (maybe not imagination) that far surpasses, let alone that of apes. Machines already can look like us, talk like us, act like us, and have emotional reactions as well as interpret our emotions and react accordingly. So are they alive yet? Will they be?

What are your thoughts? What are the possibilities?[/quote]
Seriously, you need to read up on your St. Thomas Aquinas.

All living creatures (humans, animals, plants) are alive. All life comes from the soul, which is the form, or animating principle of a living thing. According to St. Thomas (following Aristotle), animals have animal souls and plants have vegetable souls. Once a living thing no linger has a form, or soul, it is dead, and begins to decompose, or break down into other substances. (You'll have to read up on this to get a better definition of these terms). Animals and plants have material souls, but man is different from the lower animals in that he has a rational soul which is spiritual and immortal, and thus does not die with the body, like that of other animals, but lives on forever.

Breathing air is not the criteria for life, as fish and other aquatic creatures breathe water, and theoretically an alien creature might breathe something other than air.

The issue of the human right to life is not merely because humans are alive, but because of the sacred and unique nature of human life. Thus murdering a human being is wrong, while it is not necessarily wrong to kill animals, plants, etc. (Even bacteria is alive!)
According to certain atheistic philosophers, such as Peter Singer, there is nothing especially unique or sacred about human life, so he argues for allowing things such as infanticide, while granting rights to apes. (His group was influential in pushing for legislation such as that in Spain.) Singer argues that level of mental awareness, rather than humanity should determine what rights a creature has, including the right to life.

Machines are not alive, and never will be. They have no soul, no animating form, but are merely sophisticated tools, nothing more. No machine has shown any evidence of having actual self-awareness whatsoever. Computers can perform very sophisticated calculations, but have no consciousness themselves - only human consciousness "understands" what the machine is calculating. A super-computer still has no more self-awareness that a pocket calculator.
Machines have no actual emotions either - they can only be programmed to imitate the physical appearances of emotion in a living thing (Such as being programmed to make certain faces or noises in response to physical input, such as certain words, sound-pitches, etc. I read the Japanese built a robot that gets "upset" at the sound of the word "Bush," among other things. I suppose building an artificial liberal might not be too difficult!) The emotional reaction is entirely on the part of the human observer. Pre-programmed physical responses do not equal self-awareness or emotion.

Personally, I'm quite unimpressed by the claims that computers will be self-aware/smarter than humans in 40 years. The were making the same claim 40 years ago, and we're no closer today, imo. Such talk is a lot of hot air. The idea that if you simply build a powerful and complex enough computer, you will get a self-aware, intelligent being is a lot of materialistic sci-fi.

If your interested in such questions, I'd strongly recommend the book, [url="http://www.amazon.com/Devices-Soul-Battling-Selves-Machines/dp/0596526806/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217903299&sr=1-1"][i]Devices of the Soul: Battling for Our Selves in an Age of Machines[/i], by Steve Talbott.[/url]
Talbott's a veteran programmer, and has an Aristotelian/Thomistic type philosophy, though he puts it into different expressions for modern audiences, and makes no appeals to religion. He does demolish a number of common materialistic/atheistic assumptions about things, though. His philosophizing on technology is simply brilliant, and unlike anything I've ever read. He destroys self-important claims of such things as robots being alive, and predictions of "spiritual machines."

Edited August 5, 2008 by Socrates

[cmotherofpirl]

If you are not dead, and are a biological entity, you qualify as alive [ unless you are a virus].

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1617517' date='Aug 4 2008, 10:43 PM']Seriously, you need to read up on your St. Thomas Aquinas.

All living creatures (humans, animals, plants) are alive. All life comes from the soul, which is the form, or animating principle of a living thing. According to St. Thomas (following Aristotle), animals have animal souls and plants have vegetable souls. Once a living thing no linger has a form, or soul, it is dead, and begins to decompose, or break down into other substances. (You'll have to read up on this to get a better definition of these terms). Animals and plants have material souls, but man is different from the lower animals in that he has a rational soul which is spiritual and immortal, and thus does not die with the body, like that of other animals, but lives on forever.

Breathing air is not the criteria for life, as fish and other aquatic creatures breathe water, and theoretically an alien creature might breathe something other than air.

The issue of the human right to life is not merely because humans are alive, but because of the sacred and unique nature of human life. Thus murdering a human being is wrong, while it is not necessarily wrong to kill animals, plants, etc. (Even bacteria is alive!)
According to certain atheistic philosophers, such as Peter Singer, there is nothing especially unique or sacred about human life, so he argues for allowing things such as infanticide, while granting rights to apes. (His group was influential in pushing for legislation such as that in Spain.) Singer argues that level of mental awareness, rather than humanity should determine what rights a creature has, including the right to life.

Machines are not alive, and never will be. They have no soul, no animating form, but are merely sophisticated tools, nothing more. No machine has shown any evidence of having actual self-awareness whatsoever. Computers can perform very sophisticated calculations, but have no consciousness themselves - only human consciousness "understands" what the machine is calculating. A super-computer still has no more self-awareness that a pocket calculator.
Machines have no actual emotions either - they can only be programmed to imitate the physical appearances of emotion in a living thing (Such as being programmed to make certain faces or noises in response to physical input, such as certain words, sound-pitches, etc. I read the Japanese built a robot that gets "upset" at the sound of the word "Bush," among other things. I suppose building an artificial liberal might not be too difficult!) The emotional reaction is entirely on the part of the human observer. Pre-programmed physical responses do not equal self-awareness or emotion.

Personally, I'm quite unimpressed by the claims that computers will be self-aware/smarter than humans in 40 years. The were making the same claim 40 years ago, and we're no closer today, imo. Such talk is a lot of hot air. The idea that if you simply build a powerful and complex enough computer, you will get a self-aware, intelligent being is a lot of materialistic sci-fi.

If your interested in such questions, I'd strongly recommend the book, [url="http://www.amazon.com/Devices-Soul-Battling-Selves-Machines/dp/0596526806/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217903299&sr=1-1"][i]Devices of the Soul: Battling for Our Selves in an Age of Machines[/i], by Steve Talbott.[/url]
Talbott's a veteran programmer, and has an Aristotelian/Thomistic type philosophy, though he puts it into different expressions for modern audiences, and makes no appeals to religion. He does demolish a number of common materialistic/atheistic assumptions about things, though. His philosophizing on technology is simply brilliant, and unlike anything I've ever read. He destroys self-important claims of such things as robots being alive, and predictions of "spiritual machines."[/quote]

Chill, Soc. He knows that stuff, he isn't claiming that machines ARE alive, and he knows that all plants and animals are (under Catholic theology). He's just trying to reach that conclusion logically (something all posters have thusfar failed to do).

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1617517' date='Aug 4 2008, 10:43 PM']Seriously, you need to read up on your St. Thomas Aquinas.

All living creatures (humans, animals, plants) are alive. All life comes from the soul, which is the form, or animating principle of a living thing. ...[/quote]

That's very cool, Socrates; thanks! I shall check out that book, maybe this weekend. Any other good titles, let me know. And you are right, I need to increase my understanding of philosophy if I am interested in such things, particularly in the subject of form and matter.

And so, only biological entities have souls--is that the qualifier? Or in 40 years or-so will the idea of a "machine soul" will be a logical topic for discussion?

Also, as far as emotion, one can argue that programmed responses and learned responses are no different.

[Socrates]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1617571' date='Aug 4 2008, 10:13 PM']Chill, Soc. He knows that stuff, he isn't claiming that machines ARE alive, and he knows that all plants and animals are (under Catholic theology). He's just trying to reach that conclusion logically (something all posters have thusfar failed to do).[/quote]
I wasn't mad at LD; I was just clarifying some philosophical points, and recommending a book I thought had some interesting insights relevant to this issue. And there did seem to be some confusion in the poll between whether a thing is alive and personhood, which are actually two separate issues.

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1617801' date='Aug 5 2008, 12:05 AM']That's very cool, Socrates; thanks! I shall check out that book, maybe this weekend. Any other good titles, let me know. And you are right, I need to increase my understanding of philosophy if I am interested in such things, particularly in the subject of form and matter.

And so, only biological entities have souls--is that the qualifier? Or in 40 years or-so will the idea of a "machine soul" will be a logical topic for discussion?

Also, as far as emotion, one can argue that programmed responses and learned responses are no different.[/quote]
That book I actually kind of stumbled on by accident (by way of my job, actually - I sell O'Reilly titles). It's a good, thought-provoking read - basically philosophically-oriented essays on a number of topics regarding human nature, and man's relationship with technology.

To make a long answer short, yes, only "biological entities" can truly be alive. It's part of the whole form/matter substance thing. A living creature is a single substance, and its soul is what informs its matter. A dog, for instance, has the substance of "dog" from its conception until its death, at which point it loses its animating form (or soul), and it's body begins to decompose into other substances. Once the dog is dead, its form, or "animal soul" is gone forever, while, according to Aristotle and St. Thomas, the human soul, being spiritual, lives on forever.
Sorry if this is unclear - despite my sn, I'm not really a philosopher.

A machine, on the other hand, is not a unified substance, and has no "form" or "soul." It is an artificial construction of parts put together by human beings for a specific function. It's merely an advanced tool. A machine lacks a soul, or animating principle. Unlike a creature which has life and death, the parts of a machine can be disassembled and reassembled. The machine does not die when taken apart or shut down. There is no soul, or "life principle," which uniquely informs the machine, but only a physical power source (such as an electric current, or combustion of fuel).
Despite what the techno-enthusiasts will tell you, there will never be a "machine soul." That is a fallacy based on materialistic philosophical assumptions.

Machines likewise do not have actual emotions. A machine has no consciousness or self-awareness, and itself "feels" nothing. You can feel happiness. If I program a robot that makes a "happy face" in response to certain physical stimuli, that is not actual emotion, but a physical simulation of the effects of emotion.
Such "emotional robots" are in essence just sophisticated Tickle-Me-Elmo dolls.

And trying to reduce human consciousness and emotion to mere physical responses (like a light turning on when we flick a switch) is bad reductionist materialist philosophy, and contrary to our experience as human beings.
So far, no computer has shown any real evidence of consciousness or self-awareness.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1619769' date='Aug 6 2008, 08:55 PM']I wasn't mad at LD; I was just clarifying some philosophical points, and recommending a book I thought had some interesting insights relevant to this issue. And there did seem to be some confusion in the poll between whether a thing is alive and personhood, which are actually two separate issues.[/quote]

Yeah. I kinda have a hothead. sorry.

[dairygirl4u2c]

speaking purely from the gut,,,, conscienceness i'd bet can only be achieved by God breathing life into it. nothing can duplicate that, the mountain/throne of God that can never mounted. it transcends the corporeal reality, we're spiritual beings having a human experience.

[scardella]

Hey, Number 5 is alive!
[img]http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b122/nam4anad/johnnyfive.jpg[/img]

and don't forget Wall-E
[img]http://www.firstshowing.net/img/wall-e-poster1-big.jpg[/img]