4 ms·

No, it isn't. Imagine a hypothetical sterile human that was single celled - suddenly we've reached the same conclusion without the sub-organism reproduction is

No, it isn't. Imagine a hypothetical sterile human that was single celled - suddenly we've reached the same conclusion without the sub-organism reproduction issue. Making reproduction a core premise of being alive really drives to the idea of mortality, as reproduction is a way of overcoming our mortal coils. Yet, it is truly reasonable to classify reproduction as the only way? It also assumes a lineage, which is not required for synthetically created organisms. I've said this elsewhere, but proteins are not required, in any regard, for life. They are an emergent phenomenon of the Earth's chemistry, not a rule for life. I mean, what is a cell even - "A fluid filled, membrane enclosed thing"? The reason cells are structured as they are is because of water, so a non-water based organisms would likely look much, much different.

Koshkin 9y ago
Somehow I am having hard time imagining a single-celled, synthetically created, non-water-based, sterile human being... I am not sure I understand the drive to redefine life beyond the life as we know it (i.e. what it actually is, as a fact), the drive that leaves one in what can only be seen as the domain of fiction at best (and pseudo-science at worst).
- 21 9y ago
  Do you believe its possible for a computer, more specifically an Artificial General Intelligence, to be "alive" (if one such thing ever gets built)?
  - Koshkin 9y ago
    Conscious? Yes (possibly). Alive? No.
    - techas 9y ago
      I'd say It differently. Intelligent? Yes Conscious? Probably not. Does intelligence imply life? I'd say no.
- alextheparrot 9y ago
  The drive was that I don't believe the original question, "Can a living creature be as big as a galaxy" is reasonable for organisms we are familiar with. If we hope to answer such big hypothetical questions, we may need to find ourselves in foreign lands as well.
- gonvaled 9y ago
  We are discussing hypothetical life forms, different to the ones on Earth. Obviously we can not use a definition of life which only applies to earth-based life: we need to generalize more.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Koshkin 9y ago

Somehow I am having hard time imagining a single-celled, synthetically created, non-water-based, sterile human being... I am not sure I understand the drive to redefine life beyond the life as we know it (i.e. what it actually is, as a fact), the drive that leaves one in what can only be seen as the domain of fiction at best (and pseudo-science at worst).

21 9y ago
Do you believe its possible for a computer, more specifically an Artificial General Intelligence, to be "alive" (if one such thing ever gets built)?
- Koshkin 9y ago
  Conscious? Yes (possibly). Alive? No.
  - techas 9y ago
    I'd say It differently. Intelligent? Yes Conscious? Probably not. Does intelligence imply life? I'd say no.
alextheparrot 9y ago
The drive was that I don't believe the original question, "Can a living creature be as big as a galaxy" is reasonable for organisms we are familiar with. If we hope to answer such big hypothetical questions, we may need to find ourselves in foreign lands as well.
gonvaled 9y ago
We are discussing hypothetical life forms, different to the ones on Earth. Obviously we can not use a definition of life which only applies to earth-based life: we need to generalize more.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]