Non-biological "life"? Here on Earth?

[PseuTonym]

I simply consider humans as a sub-class of the wider category of intelligent (sentient) beings. The actual “makeup” of those beings is irrelevant. There is nothing tenuous or arbitrary about this definition. Any being who falls into the “intelligent (or sentient) being” category is entitled to the same ethical treatment, be it a human, a cyborg, an android, a robot, a mutant dolphin, a space alien, or even God (if he existed) - as long as they all subscribe to the same ethical standard as we do (namely the golden rule and its variants).

I notice that you included in your list “a mutant dolphin.” Is an ordinary dolphin not intelligent enough to be considered “intelligent”, even though dolphins are, along with human beings, orangutans, and chimpanzees, among the most intelligent species in the world?

Do you believe that all human beings are equally intelligent? If not, then how much intelligence does a human being need in order to qualify as a member of the “intelligent (or sentient) being” category?

 

[MPat]

Oh it is partially for fun.

Ah, but then not hearing out counterarguments blocks us from more fun. For example, if you were willing to consider other definitions, perhaps discussion would have lead us to questions like these: to what extent the tests performed by Viking 1 and Viking 2 in Mars could be expected to find life as defined in each way, what other tests could be suitable, what tests would different definitions suggest… Wouldn’t that be more fun?

 

[MPat]

Peter Plato;12553512:

All humans are presumed to be human

What a great example of a circular definition.

I guess it is less circular than it looks. For “human” can mean two things: 1) “biological human” - member of species homo sapiens, 2) “philosophical human” - rational animal. We have no example of a non-fictional being that would belong to one category but not to another, thus we use “human” for both. Of course, should we ever meet aliens or taking animals from fairy tales or cartoons (“philosophical humans” that are not “biological humans”), using the same word for both categories might prove awkward…

Thus this “definition” would say that all “biological humans” are presumed to be “philosophical humans”.

 

[Hee_Zen]

I notice that you included in your list “a mutant dolphin.” Is an ordinary dolphin not intelligent enough to be considered “intelligent”, even though dolphins are, along with human beings, orangutans, and chimpanzees, among the most intelligent species in the world?

The jury is still “out there”. They certainly exhibit a very rudimentary level of intelligence, even though there is no evidence that they can conceptualize, and think in abstract terms. But I would not complain if these animals would be afforded some human-level type of protection. Of course that is rather subjective, since I would be against the cutting down of sequoia trees, too. Sentimental approach, probably.

Do you believe that all human beings are equally intelligent? If not, then how much intelligence does a human being need in order to qualify as a member of the “intelligent (or sentient) being” category?

Those whose level of intelligence is very low, could be “grandfathered” in for the sake of simplicity. But the problem is not how “narrow” the category of “honorary” humans should be, rather how wide it should be.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Ah, but then not hearing out counterarguments blocks us from more fun.

I read almost every comment about my posts, even if I do not reply to most of them. The problem is that counterarguments must be a certain level of rationality before they deserve to be contemplated.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Pleasing people definitely isn’t a requirement for science fiction writing. The best science fiction writers are rather disturbing and shake people up.

Maybe in this case I might be a good science-fiction writer. I try to disturb and shake people up, and from the hostility exhibited to some of my posts I seem to be somewhat successful. The problem is that writing a good book requires a lot more than just “disturbing people”. Writing books is a very hard and complicated subject, and I have no knowledge about it. I had a co-worker, who wanted to write a book based upon his real life experiences. He was a fighter pilot, an airplane-crash investigator, with a huge knowledge base to “dip” into for the purposes of writing a thriller. I read his stuff and it was awful.

 

[MPat]

I read almost every comment about my posts, even if I do not reply to most of them. The problem is that counterarguments must be a certain level of rationality before they deserve to be contemplated.

Wait, how can you tell if a counterargument has that “certain level of rationality” without “contemplating” it in the least? And if you really do not think about argument before rejecting it, are you sure there are no “false positives”?

Not to mention that picking apart silly arguments can be fun. For example, your argument about “the only definition of life” in this thread really didn’t have “a certain level of rationality”, but I did enjoy hunting for that Engels’ quote to demonstrate that more clearly.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Viruses technically speaking aren’t even classified as life by the scientific community.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Wait, how can you tell if a counterargument has that “certain level of rationality” without “contemplating” it in the least? And if you really do not think about argument before rejecting it, are you sure there are no “false positives”?

Not to mention that picking apart silly arguments can be fun. For example, your argument about “the only definition of life” in this thread really didn’t have “a certain level of rationality”, but I did enjoy hunting for that Engels’ quote to demonstrate that more clearly.

An excellent point.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Viruses technically speaking aren’t even classified as life by the scientific community.

You mean there are different opinions and as such no consensus … which was my point.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Wait, how can you tell if a counterargument has that “certain level of rationality” without “contemplating” it in the least?

It depends on how “deep” the contemplation goes. Some arguments are so silly that they do not deserve a second glance, others need more consideration. If an argument starts with referring to the “immortal soul”, for example, that goes directly into file #13. One size does not fit all… and if my post gave you that impression, then I am sorry for the brevity.

My sentence should have been: The problem is that counterarguments must be a certain level of rationality before they deserve to be contemplated seriously.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Throughout Scriptures, beginning with Genisis, God makes a clear distinction between living and non-living things. And since God does not lie we have to adhere to the distinctions he has made. Further more, the Catholic Churh makes the same distinction. Therefore machinical things, artifacts, things made by man can be called living only by analogy because of a similarity between certain operations, but this analogy cannot be extended to include the notion that artifacts actually possess life as God has defined it.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[davidv]

It depends on how “deep” the contemplation goes. Some arguments are so silly that they do not deserve a second glance, others need more consideration. If an argument starts with referring to the “immortal soul”, for example, that goes directly into file #13.

Sounds like confirmation bias to me.

One size does not fit all… and if my post gave you that impression, then I am sorry for the brevity.

My sentence should have been: The problem is that counterarguments must be a certain level of rationality before they deserve to be contemplated seriously.

 

[Winterwolf00]

You mean there are different opinions and as such no consensus … which was my point.

There is no consensus that viruses even are identified as life yes.

 

[DanAl]

Well, maybe you just suppressed a big yawn and say, sure, but this is ancient news. What is the big deal? The “big deal” is this: not for nothing are the computer viruses called “viruses”. They exhibit the same behavior as their biological counterparts do: "they stay alive in a hostile environment, they evolve (change) when necessary, they replicate themselves and “infest” new hosts. Sometimes they even “kill” their hosts. So they qualify as “living entities” just like the biological viruses do.

So the conclusion is simple; non-biological life is HERE and it is here to stay. It is able to evolve, to change, to replicate itself it is able to do everything that “life” is supposed to do (This cannot be right, “everything?”). So all you naysayers, who assert the impossibility of non-biological life, take notice: “you are wrong”! And this life has no “soul”, needs no “soul”. The concept of “soul” as animating principle is gone, dead and buried.

You’re confusing the nature or essence of some thing with its properties as criteria for life, see the highlighted words. One could say that, “being awake is not lying down in bed,” and conclude that my desk and chair are always awake.

 

[Hee_Zen]

There is no consensus that viruses even are identified as life yes.

Exactly. Just think about it: “biology is science of studying life”… and the biologists are unable draw the line between “living” and “non-living” organisms.

 

[Hee_Zen]

You’re confusing the nature or essence of some thing with its properties as criteria for life, see the highlighted words. One could say that, “being awake is not lying down in bed,” and conclude that my desk and chair are always awake.

One of these days (years?) I hope someone will be able to show what is the “essence” of a chair, and the “essence” of a dog, or the “essence” of a human.

 

[MPat]

My sentence should have been: The problem is that counterarguments must be a certain level of rationality before they deserve to be contemplated seriously.

OK, that is certainly an improvement… You know, formulating your thoughts exactly is very useful in such discussions.

If an argument starts with referring to the “immortal soul”, for example, that goes directly into file #13.

OK, can you give us an argument that it is a good idea to reject all such arguments? Oh, and if you do not see why that looks so silly, remember that the argument you present must not use the “magic words” themselves, as then you would have to conclude that it is also not worth of serious consideration…

Of course, you are free to restate your “heuristic” in some other way, if it is not meant to be used so literally.

 

[Hee_Zen]

OK, that is certainly an improvement… You know, formulating your thoughts exactly is very useful in such discussions.

Who should cast the first stone?

OK, can you give us an argument that it is a good idea to reject all such arguments?

Specifically for this “soul”:

1. First, because there is not even a coherent definition of what this “soul” might be.
2. Second, there is no method to decide if someone actually HAS a soul.
3. Third, there is no evidence for the soul to be immortal.

Generally, I am not interested in mythology. Before you might feel the need to complain, that I am singling out your arguments, I would do the same with the proponents of the paranormal. I leave all of you to your devices. As soon as you can present a rational definition, and a rational argument for your assertions, you will be taken seriously. I promise.

 

[MPat]

Specifically for this “soul”:

1. First, because there is not even a coherent definition of what this “soul” might be.
2. Second, there is no method to decide if someone actually HAS a soul.
3. Third, there is no evidence for the soul to be immortal.

OK… First, it is not even a real argument, as the conclusion itself (“All arguments that use X are unsound.”) is not even stated, nor anything similar to logical derivation of it has been presented.

Second, stated premises are rather questionable. “There is no evidence that X.” is a very strong claim (claim “There is no good evidence that X.” would be weaker). It is hardly ever true.

And third (most importantly) - it can be shown to be unsound by reductio ad absurdum. Let’s make a temporary assumption that it does demonstrate the conclusion that any argument that refers to some “magic word” (note that I am deliberately avoiding it ) is unsound. But the argument itself does mention this “magic word”. Thus it is unsound and demonstrates nothing. We get a contradiction and thus the temporary assumption that the argument does demonstrate something has been disproved.

Generally, I am not interested in mythology. Before you might feel the need to complain, that I am singling out your arguments, I would do the same with the proponents of the paranormal. I leave all of you to your devices. As soon as you can present a rational definition, and a rational argument for your assertions, you will be taken seriously. I promise.

You have stated that you will reject any argument that even mentions the word. How can you keep both those promises?