"What is life" debate, inlcuding viruses

[sinnerdexter]

The following was posted on another thread and I was so intrigued by it that I felt is was worth its own thread.

ContegoFides:

While putting a precise definition on “life” is difficult, we can all say “we know it when we see it.”

Also, there are qualitatively different kinds of life, and you appear to be asserting that all life should be treated equally - when plainly that’s not right. Plants are not animals, and humans are not animals or plants, bacteria are not plants or animals or humans, and neither are fungus.

Sperm and unfertilized eggs might be “life” but they are not ***human ***life, which requires the union of the two.

Once they are joined, you have an independent “life” that grows on its own and has its own life force independent of the mother (even if the mother is necessary to provide nourishment and support, it’s clearly distinct). That’s patently obvious.

So, while countless sperm die with each ejaculation, and while countless eggs die with the menses of billions of women on planet Earth, - and while these might be “life” - we should mourn them no more than we mourn the death of plants when we pick from our vegetable garden.

On the other hand, single a human being with a soul, even if smaller than a pin head, that is something worth worrying about.

This was in response to egg and sperm as life forms in the thread Stop Masturbating.

So “What is life”?

If anyone has other definition, please post them.

 

[coolduude]

I would define life as ‘the time after fertilization in which development occurs’. I think this definition covers humans, animals, and plants. Basically all living things

 

[R_Daneel]

So “What is life”?

A living organism attempts to maintain its homeostasis in changing conditions. It actively responds to the changes in its environment. Simply: “life is complex responses to complex stimuli”. Pretty vague, but it cannot be helped. Where does one draw the line, is subject to opinion. As you mentioned viruses, some biologists define it as “living”, others do not. The “building blocks” are not relevant. We can imagine life made up of inorganic materials, maybe even build one. Science fiction, for sure, but not impossible.

I would define life as ‘the time after fertilization in which development occurs’. I think this definition covers humans, animals, and plants. Basically all living things

There is no “fertilization” in bacteria. The highlighted text is just tautology.

 

[JohnDamian]

So “What is life”?

Living matter is matter that is not inanimate; that is to say - matter which has self sustaining and propagating functions; and displays in general abilities to reproduce, grow, respond to stimulae or in any other way distinguish itself from stationary; non organic objects.

 

[sinnerdexter]

A living organism attempts to maintain its homeostasis in changing conditions. It actively responds to the changes in its environment. Simply: “life is complex responses to complex stimuli”. Pretty vague, but it cannot be helped. Where does one draw the line, is subject to opinion. As you mentioned viruses, some biologists define it as “living”, others do not. The “building blocks” are not relevant. We can imagine life made up of inorganic materials, maybe even build one. Science fiction, for sure, but not impossible.

Yes, one will define life in terms of their belief system.

 

[ContegoFides]

The problem with this definition of life is that you start getting really fuzzy at the boundaries. For example, a fire is self-sustaining until it runs out of fuel (nothing to eat) or is suppressed (killed), has propagating functions, displays abilities to reproduce, grow, and respond to stimuli. However, we all clearly know that a fire is not life. So, what is the difference?

A computer can display complex responses to complex stimuli. However, we all clearly know that a computer is not life. So, what is the difference?

Bacteria, as well as viruses, and certain fungus and plants, and many other organisms, do not use fertilization to reproduce, so we cannot use fertilization as a definition of life.

Using sentience or self awareness is also not a good definition for life, because these same organisms are clearly life, but not self aware or sentient.

So defining life precisely is actually an extremely difficult problem. For a decent, but very cusory, overview of the subject of defining life, I suggest reading here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Now, sinnerdexter said:

Yes, one will define life in terms of their belief system.

On the surface, I agree, but I can ontologically demonstrate that the underlying assumptions and conclusions that go along with the affirmative agreement to the statement are incorrect.

Why? Defining life ultimately is a philosophical question. We can observe behaviors and physical processes, but calling any given organizational system of processes “a life” is a value judgement that we make. Given that the definition of life must be a philosophical question, and further given a plethora of different philosophies, one will indeed define life in terms of their belief system. In fact, extreme atheists don’t really believe in “life” at all, but rather that what we call life (including us humans) are simply manifestations of extremely complex machines that ultimately are chaotic but deterministic.

So, where to go from here? Now we turn to philosophy generally. By critically analyzing different philosophies we can determine which philosophies are crock, and which are solid.

For example, I suspect that the underlying premise of the statement “one will define life in terms of their belief system” is the belief in moral relativism. Moral relativism is the idea that there are no absolutes, that no one can “prove” that one philosophy is correct, so we must tolerate them all. Moral relativism is generally associated with atheism, or at least agnosticism to the extent that no one can agree on the nature of God. Usually, moral relativism is used to attack the Church. Moral relativism is the banner and rallying cry of modern liberal thinking.

However, moral relativism suffers from two fatal flaws. First it is intrinsicially paradoxical and self defeating. It says “absolutely there are no absolutes,” which is on its face a paradox. We a-priori know that true paradoxes cannot exist, and so moral relativisim is false. Second, it is usually hypocritical. The typical moral relativist makes moral judgements, typically about those who disagree with moral relativism (usually using words like “intolerant,” which is clearly a perjorative moral value judgement - implying that the ridiculed philosophy should not be tolerated). A true moral relativist cannot judge one philosophy from another, and thus would have to say that Hitler’s philosophy is really no different than Mother’s Theresa’s philosophy. Everyone knows that is bunk, and moral relativists will usually reject such a statement, again indicating that they really DO make value judgements based on something that somehow vaguely must be “right.”

So, there IS something that is a moral constant? Something absolute? If so, then that absolute must exist independently of us.

Which brings us to God. Well, Jesus claimed to be God, and he was liar, lunatic, legend, or Lord. To avoid getting TOO far off point, I will assert without argument for now that we can exclude liar, lunatic, or legend - meaning He is Lord God. Jesus said HE would build His Church on Peter, and thus the Catholic Church is a mystical body holding the fullness of absolute Truth.

All of that had a purpose to the question at hand. On thorny questions like “what is life” we may turn to the Church to give us a reliable answer. I cannot find an authoritative reference in the short time I have, but I believe “life” is defined by the existence of a soul.

That’s right. Plants have souls, animals have souls, even viruses, sperm, and eggs have souls. However, they are material souls that expire upon death and, more importantly, are in a qualitative category distinct from human souls. We, as being body-soul composites, can recognize this intrinsic quality of life (i.e., having a soul) and thus distinguish a virus as being life different in quality from a fire, which is not life.

Thus, even if a sperm is “life” with a “material soul,” it is not murder or even killing when one dies. It is murder to kill another human being, including a fertilized ovum, because murder by definition is one human killing another human without justification.

If you do not agree, then watch out. Why is your life any different than the millions or even billions of bacteria that your body kills every single day as part of your immune system? Obviously, that way lies madness, a philosophy of nihilism and death, because human life becomes no different than any other animal or plant - so the “calculus” of life ends up concluding that human life should become extinct.

Sound ludicrous? This is real. Do a google search on Peter Singer - he precisely argues that it is moral and ethical for all humans to sterilize themselves and for the human race to become extinct. Such is the end result of this line of thinking.

 

[ContegoFides]

The short answer:

The definition of life is any system that has a soul. Souls have different categories that are intrinsically different in quality. Human souls are immortal and are in a higher category than animal, plant, fungal, bacterial, or viral souls, and most humans are able to recognize the existence of a soul in another system, and thus are able to distinguish between mere material processes and “life.”

As an interesting aside, there is at least one category of soul greater than humans - of course, God Himself.

 

[R_Daneel]

A computer can display complex responses to complex stimuli. However, we all clearly know that a computer is not life. So, what is the difference?

What is it indeed? The computer viruses are actually called viruses, because they emulate their biological counterparts. Not all of them are harmful either. There are many “info-bots”, which roam around on the net, and collect new information for the search engines. To exclude them from “life”, based on the fact that they are not biological, seems like a bit of chauvinistic to me. The funny thing is that these viruses are not static. Some are highly sophisticated, can modify themselves to suit to different environments, and avoid dectecting mechanisms. Oh, and to reflect on the next part of your post, they most emphatically do not have a “soul”.

One may retort that these computer viruses merely “emulate” life, but are not “life-forms” themselves. And that brings up the fundamental question: “where does emulation stop, and the real McCoy begin?”. And here we are at a subjective differentiation again.

 

[ContegoFides]

What is it indeed? The computer viruses are actually called viruses, because they emulate their biological counterparts. Not all of them are harmful either. There are many “info-bots”, which roam around on the net, and collect new information for the search engines. To exclude them from “life”, based on the fact that they are not biological, seems like a bit of chauvinistic to me. The funny thing is that these viruses are not static. Some are highly sophisticated, can modify themselves to suit to different environments, and avoid dectecting mechanisms. Oh, and to reflect on the next part of your post, they most emphatically do not have a “soul”.

One may retort that these computer viruses merely “emulate” life, but are not “life-forms” themselves. And that brings up the fundamental question: “where does emulation stop, and the real McCoy begin?”. And here we are at a subjective differentiation again.

I agree with you, and I agree your question is 100% valid, and with your arrival at subjective evaluation.

That’s why I think trying to define life based on observed characteristics or behaviors is not only fruitless, but dangerous. As I asserted in more detail above, the real answer to what is “life” is based on philosophy and, ultimately, God; and hence religion. Taking any other road results in madness, IMHO.

So, where does emulation end and life begin? I’m not sure, but I know it when I see it. Kind of like Chief Justice Brennan’s classic definition of “obsenity” in U.S. jurisprudence.

 

[R_Daneel]

I agree with you, and I agree your question is 100% valid, and with your arrival at subjective evaluation.

That’s why I think trying to define life based on observed characteristics or behaviors is not only fruitless, but dangerous.

Why would it be dangerous? Maybe we would exclude some beings where we are unable to detect that they are living beings? In the book of Andromeda Strain there is a great problem posited. One of the scientists presents a rock, and “asserts” that it “lives”. It moves, eats, procreates, maybe even conducts deep philosophical conversations… but its lifespan is about 70 million years, so one second of its life equals one whole human life, and because of this time-scale difference we are unable to detect all that. Makes one think, doesn’t it?

As I asserted in more detail above, the real answer to what is “life” is based on philosophy and, ultimately, God; and hence religion. Taking any other road results in madness, IMHO.

I see no reason for your leap of faith. If we consider a computer virus “alive”, based on its behavior, the assumption of a “soul” becomes unnecessary.

So, where does emulation end and life begin? I’m not sure, but I know it when I see it. Kind of like Chief Justice Brennan’s classic definition of “obsenity” in U.S. jurisprudence.

I think it was pornography, not just obscenity, but it does not matter. The trouble is not “recognition”, but judicial activity based on a vague definition. Do you “see” that rock being alive? Maybe they are alive, and every time we crush one to make a road, we destroy a sentient being.

 

[ContegoFides]

The reason why defining life in terms of easily measurable parameters is dangerous is a result of the fact that you basically can’t define life in terms of measurable parameters. Your example of a computer virus is a good one; we all know it’s not alive. If you define it to be life based on behavior, then you might find other examples of other things that are not “alive” but demonstrate behaviors. Fire, for example, eats, reproduces, attempts to stay burning (“alive”) etc., but clearly isn’t alive. If you do that then you can come to erroneous conclusions about how we should treat various systems as being alive or not alive.

Regarding your assertion for my leap of faith, I disagree. I think there is compelling reason to believe that an adequate definition of life must be philosophical in origin. If not, then we start to come to those erroneous conclusions I mentioned above. Rules for entire societies get changed depending on what is alive and how life should be treated.

Besides, the very idea of requiring the definition of life to be based on measurable quantities is, itself, a value judgement based on philosophical considerations. If that decision is philosophical, then it should be evaluated alongside all other philosophical definitions.

I don’t grok the rock example (and I’m familiar with the Andromeda strain). Absent any rational evidence that the rock is alive, we have no basis at all to believe that it has a “lifespan” of billions of years, especially since we have evidence of rocks being billions of years old and essentially unchanged (moon rocks, for example). If there is no rational basis for a belief, then it’s fairly safe to dismiss the belief as being of such extraordinary improbability as to be effectively impossible. (Note: this argument doesn’t work for atheism, since there are rational reasons to believe in God, but I digress.)

 

[hatsoff]

However, we all clearly know that a fire is not life.

We know that fire is not termed “life” in natural language (e.g. English), because we are all intimately familiar with natural language.

However, we all clearly know that a computer is not life.

We know that ordinary desktop computers are not life, for the same linguistic reasons that we know fire is not life. However, some might wish to call a sufficiently advanced computerized machine “alive” (though granted I’d not expect you to be among them).

Defining life ultimately is a philosophical question.

That’s one possible purpose for such a definition, but it is by no means the only one, as evidenced by the discussion of the subject in biology circles.

In fact, extreme atheists don’t really believe in “life” at all, but rather that what we call life (including us humans) are simply manifestations of extremely complex machines that ultimately are chaotic but deterministic.

It’s possible that there are some very unconventional people out there who hold to a definition of “life” which they believe is not satisfied by any real entity, and who also happen to be atheists. I have never met any such person, however.

Moral relativism is the idea that there are no absolutes, that no one can “prove” that one philosophy is correct, so we must tolerate them all.

It says “absolutely there are no absolutes,” which is on its face a paradox.

A true moral relativist cannot judge one philosophy from another, and thus would have to say that Hitler’s philosophy is really no different than Mother’s Theresa’s philosophy.

Metaethical moral relativism (which is the sort of moral relativism you seem to be after) posits that there are no absolutes without a standard of reference (for example conventions of the English language). Within the context of a particular moral code or system, absolutes are quite common. Moreover, metaethical moral relativism is a position on the content of moral language, outlining in what ways moral claims may or may not be truth-evaluable. It is not itself a moral position which prescribes behavior of any kind, much less the tolerance of moral diversity.

Well, Jesus claimed to be God, and he was liar, lunatic, legend, or Lord.

Cheers for adding a fourth option to the traditional Lewisian three! It is clearly the best explanation for the data. However, I can think of more still:

• a completely mythical character
• mistaken, but not insane
• employing hyperbole as a rhetorical device with no intent for deceit
• otherwise misunderstood by his audience

I don’t think any of these are particularly likely to be true, but they go to show the myriad of possibilities ignored by the trilemma.

Do a google search on Peter Singer - he precisely argues that it is moral and ethical for all humans to sterilize themselves and for the human race to become extinct. Such is the end result of this line of thinking.

If a person is worried that he will not be able to safeguard the well-being of any children he might have, then, although it would be an extreme measure in my opinion, given its permanency, it would be morally praiseworthy for him to sterilize himself in order to avoid causing an excess of suffering. Incidentally, this is not at all to say that it would be morally wrong to decline sterilization. Moreover, neither my own personal moral judgments nor those of Peter Singer (who is a pretty radical fellow) are binding on atheists, or somehow follow necessarily from atheism. They’re just personal value judgments.

 

[R_Daneel]

The reason why defining life in terms of easily measurable parameters is dangerous is a result of the fact that you basically can’t define life in terms of measurable parameters. Your example of a computer virus is a good one; we all know it’s not alive.

I would say, we “define” it (or consider it) not to be alive.

Suppose that in the future we shall be able to develop “robots”, and/or “androids” (artifical humans). The robot is made of metallic or plastic materials, the androids are “manufactured” from organic compounds. Maybe the robots are covered with artifical skins, so they are not readily distinguishable from humans. Should we differentiate between them, and say that the androids are “alive”, but the robots are not? Or maybe say that both are alive? Or neither? (I refer here to the problems developed by Asimov. What else can I do with my screen-name? )

If you define it to be life based on behavior, then you might find other examples of other things that are not “alive” but demonstrate behaviors. Fire, for example, eats, reproduces, attempts to stay burning (“alive”) etc., but clearly isn’t alive. If you do that then you can come to erroneous conclusions about how we should treat various systems as being alive or not alive.

Well, when we speak of fires, they certainly exhibit some of the features which can be attributed to life. However, they do not “succeed” in maintaining their own homeostasis in changing conditions, for example when no oxygen is present, or if they are inundated with water. Therefore we make the subjective assessment, and say that fire does not exhibit enough of the necessary features to label them as “living”. (Of course, we cannot survive under water for a long time either, so the subjective nature of “where to draw the line” always raises its ugly head. )

Regarding your assertion for my leap of faith, I disagree. I think there is compelling reason to believe that an adequate definition of life must be philosophical in origin. If not, then we start to come to those erroneous conclusions I mentioned above. Rules for entire societies get changed depending on what is alive and how life should be treated.

Besides, the very idea of requiring the definition of life to be based on measurable quantities is, itself, a value judgement based on philosophical considerations. If that decision is philosophical, then it should be evaluated alongside all other philosophical definitions.

I don’t disagree that there are value judments and philosophical considerations. However, if these considerations are not based on reality (in this case, biology, intellectronics, etc…) they are not much of a guideline to help in making proper value judgments.

I don’t grok the rock example (and I’m familiar with the Andromeda strain). Absent any rational evidence that the rock is alive, we have no basis at all to believe that it has a “lifespan” of billions of years, especially since we have evidence of rocks being billions of years old and essentially unchanged (moon rocks, for example).

Of course, that was just a semi-tongue-in-cheek example. Yet, I need to ask you, how do we know if those moon-rocks were really unchanging through all those millenia?

If there is no rational basis for a belief, then it’s fairly safe to dismiss the belief as being of such extraordinary improbability as to be effectively impossible. (Note: this argument doesn’t work for atheism, since there are rational reasons to believe in God, but I digress.)

Yup, let us not go there.

 

[ContegoFides]

Suppose that in the future we shall be able to develop “robots”, and/or “androids” (artifical humans). The robot is made of metallic or plastic materials, the androids are “manufactured” from organic compounds. Maybe the robots are covered with artifical skins, so they are not readily distinguishable from humans. Should we differentiate between them, and say that the androids are “alive”, but the robots are not? Or maybe say that both are alive? Or neither? (I refer here to the problems developed by Asimov. What else can I do with my screen-name?

Agreed these are tough questions. Ultimately, I really can’t say. I suspect that, if such “robots” come to pass, then the Church will decide whether they have souls, and I would rely on such a determination given the Church’s authority on matters of faith and morals. I certainly acknowledge the possibility that God could infuse a sould into “body” of our mechanical making.

BTW: I’ve read Aasimov, so I’m pretty familiar with that stuff.

Well, when we speak of fires, they certainly exhibit some of the features which can be attributed to life. However, they do not “succeed” in maintaining their own homeostasis in changing conditions, for example when no oxygen is present, or if they are inundated with water. Therefore we make the subjective assessment, and say that fire does not exhibit enough of the necessary features to label them as “living”. (Of course, we cannot survive under water for a long time either, so the subjective nature of “where to draw the line” always raises its ugly head

As you acknowledge, I cannot succeed in maintaining homeostais without oxygen. Fire tries to get more oxygen by drawing oxygen into itself, at least to the limits of its abilities (not having limbs). However, fire seems to follow natural laws rather than showing signs of intelligence, which I would define as the ability to take actions that are not dictated by the laws of physics. So, I think that’s why we see fire as not being alive.

But intelligence is not the deciding factor, either…

I don’t disagree that there are value judments and philosophical considerations. However, if these considerations are not based on reality (in this case, biology, intellectronics, etc…) they are not much of a guideline to help in making proper value judgments.

Who says they’re not based on reality? God is as real as it gets, but He cannot be measured. I think that physically measurable things, such as biology, might be useful (name removed by moderator)ut in determining “what is life,” but ultimately they are not the deciding factors as the decision is, in the end, a value judgement.

Of course, that was just a semi-tongue-in-cheek example. Yet, I need to ask you, how do we know if those moon-rocks were really unchanging through all those millenia?

We don’t. We simply observe and make assessments of probability. Such is the nature of science.

 

[R_Daneel]

Agreed these are tough questions. Ultimately, I really can’t say. I suspect that, if such “robots” come to pass, then the Church will decide whether they have souls, and I would rely on such a determination given the Church’s authority on matters of faith and morals. I certainly acknowledge the possibility that God could infuse a sould into “body” of our mechanical making.

It will be an interesting time when it will happen. I wish I would live long enough to see it, but that is rather unlikely.

BTW: I’ve read Aasimov, so I’m pretty familiar with that stuff.

I was almost certain that you were. Good job! A side question: are you also familiar with Stanislaw Lem - he was a Polish scientist, futurologist, a deep thinker, and science fiction writer? In my eyes he is even greater than Asimov.

As you acknowledge, I cannot succeed in maintaining homeostais without oxygen. Fire tries to get more oxygen by drawing oxygen into itself, at least to the limits of its abilities (not having limbs). However, fire seems to follow natural laws rather than showing signs of intelligence, which I would define as the ability to take actions that are not dictated by the laws of physics. So, I think that’s why we see fire as not being alive.

I agree.

Who says they’re not based on reality? God is as real as it gets, but He cannot be measured. I think that physically measurable things, such as biology, might be useful (name removed by moderator)ut in determining “what is life,” but ultimately they are not the deciding factors as the decision is, in the end, a value judgement.

I suggest we leave God out of this business. However, a value judgment based on philosophy - it that philosophy is not in synch with science - is worthless.

We don’t. We simply observe and make assessments of probability. Such is the nature of science.

Yes, of course. But that does not qualify as “knowledge”. So maybe those rocks do conduct long philosophical conversations, undetectable by us. As you are aware, I don’t suggest this seriously, just as a food for thought. Life might not be something that we can “see”.

 

[ContegoFides]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ContegoFides
Who says they’re not based on reality? God is as real as it gets, but He cannot be measured. I think that physically measurable things, such as biology, might be useful (name removed by moderator)ut in determining “what is life,” but ultimately they are not the deciding factors as the decision is, in the end, a value judgement.

I suggest we leave God out of this business. However, a value judgment based on philosophy - it that philosophy is not in synch with science - is worthless.

God is the author of life. I’d say He’s pretty central to defining it.

A side question: are you also familiar with Stanislaw Lem - he was a Polish scientist, futurologist, a deep thinker, and science fiction writer? In my eyes he is even greater than Asimov.

Nope. I’ll have to look into him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ContegoFides

We don’t. We simply observe and make assessments of probability. Such is the nature of science.

Yes, of course. But that does not qualify as “knowledge”. So maybe those rocks do conduct long philosophical conversations, undetectable by us. As you are aware, I don’t suggest this seriously, just as a food for thought. Life might not be something that we can “see”.

Certainly. There can always be another experiment that reveals something deeper on a qualitative level.

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE / Hamlet Act 1. Scene V abt. 1601

 

[R_Daneel]

God is the author of life. I’d say He’s pretty central to defining it.

I am sure you know that I disagree.

Nope. I’ll have to look into him.

Good idea. He was a very deep thinker.

Certainly. There can always be another experiment that reveals something deeper on a qualitative level.

WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE / Hamlet Act 1. Scene V abt. 1601

I agree on both counts.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Why is your life any different than the millions or even billions of bacteria that your body kills every single day as part of your immune system?

Some people will say, there is no difference in that both are life forms.

 

[ContegoFides]

Some people will say, there is no difference in that both are life forms.

Clearly they are both life forms.

The question is whether these some people would say that each human is committing “murder” millions of times per day?

If yes, then what is the remedy for this moral crime?

 

[Darryl1958]

What is it indeed? The computer viruses are actually called viruses, because they emulate their biological counterparts. Not all of them are harmful either. There are many “info-bots”, which roam around on the net, and collect new information for the search engines. To exclude them from “life”, based on the fact that they are not biological, seems like a bit of chauvinistic to me. The funny thing is that these viruses are not static. Some are highly sophisticated, can modify themselves to suit to different environments, and avoid dectecting mechanisms. Oh, and to reflect on the next part of your post, they most emphatically do not have a “soul”.

One may retort that these computer viruses merely “emulate” life, but are not “life-forms” themselves. And that brings up the fundamental question: “where does emulation stop, and the real McCoy begin?”. And here we are at a subjective differentiation again.

Computers and viruses are extensions of the human mind really. they are offshoots of human life.