Define life

[Bozo Erectus]

Plants aren't exactly autonomous either.

Sure, plant life requires energy in order to propagate itself, but it created itself (if you wish to deny the existence of a god), which is something no computer virus would ever be able to do. In order for a plant to reproduce in a box with water and light, there has to be a plant in the first place...

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Not correct. It requires energy (electricity) and a ecosystem (the computer and its os etc.)

Again not correct. As I said it requires electricity and it also requires raw materials. Memory, disk space, sometimes network bandwdith etc. etc.

Nope. Memory, disk space, electricity and bandwidth dont count because its the same thing as saying that a universe has to exist in order for life to exist.

true. Which is the reason now there is a brach of computer science called genetic programming. Now, they must be alive by all your definitions. These programs mutate and evolve based on selection. Actual evolution takes place.

How can you say these are not life by your definition.

The truth is that I cant say it. Which means that our defintions of life, both yours and mine, are inadequate at the moment.

 

[betazed]

Which means that our defintions of life, both yours and mine, are inadequate at the moment.

Exactly. Now we are in agreement (as usual).

 

[Aphex_Twin]

However, a boundary is always well-defined. All life that we know on earth always defines such a boundary. Fire, thunderstorms and computer viruses do not define a boundary and actively maintain it.

Good points.

So what we have left are:

1. The ability to absorbe matter and energy (M&E) from the environment. (Pothead)
2. The ability to process M&E from the environment. (Pothead)
3. The ability to maintain a "boundary" between the interior and exterior.


What do you think of this general definition that I encountered somewherelse:

~ "Life accelerates entropy around itself and decelerates it inside itself"

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Exactly. Now we are in agreement (as usual).

Yes its true. When Im able to understand you in these weighty threads (not always the case), I usually agree with you

 

[Bozo Erectus]

"Life accelerates entropy around itself and decelerates it inside itself"

It may be able to decelerate it within itself, but it isnt immune to it. In this universe, Entropy will always win, whether the matter is alive or inanimate. I like the idea that life accelerates entropy in its environment and decelerates it inside itself. It seems like perhaps its transfering entropy from within to without as if entropy were a form of energy.

 

[stormbind]

Purely unscientific, but a little romantic... I define life as happiness. Sadly, I'm not always alive

 

[a space oddity]

...The truth is that I cant say it. Which means that our defintions of life, both yours and mine, are inadequate at the moment.

It seems like you are trying to look for a definition that will make 'us' (plants and animals) alive and computer virii inanimate.

You have to ask yourself: why?

I think regular virii already have shown that a strict definition of life is very hard. I'm not sure whether the gut-feeling everybody has that life is really different from all other objects stems from a real difference of just another 'us' vs 'them' feeling that all humans are so very good at.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

It seems like you are trying to look for a definition that will make 'us' (plants and animals) alive and computer virii inanimate.

You have to ask yourself: why?

I think regular virii already have shown that a strict definition of life is very hard. I'm not sure whether the gut-feeling everybody has that life is really different from all other objects stems from a real difference of just another 'us' vs 'them' feeling that all humans are so very good at.

No Im not trying to, but I do by default, like most of us do. It takes a little effort to change that and see things a little more objectively.

I would say that if we ever reach the point where a mathematical code (a computer virus) can be considered to be 'alive' (not at all impossible IMO)then we would all have to concede that its very likely that souls exist, and god too.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

I would say that if we ever reach the point where a mathematical code (a computer virus) can be considered to be 'alive' (not at all impossible IMO)then we would all have to concede that its very likely that souls exist, and god too.

I don't see where you make the connection there.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Aphex, if a man made abstract like a string of ones and zero's can be given the status of 'life', why would we continue to deny that status to other abstract concepts?

 

[IglooDame]

No Im not trying to, but I do by default, like most of us do. It takes a little effort to change that and see things a little more objectively.

I would say that if we ever reach the point where a mathematical code (a computer virus) can be considered to be 'alive' (not at all impossible IMO)then we would all have to concede that its very likely that souls exist, and god too.

I dearly hope we do not reach the point in my lifetime where a computer virus can be considered alive, because at that point I become a kidnapper and a serial killer, among other things - I have a collection of computer viruses on floppy disks that are trophies of sorts; each of them has been copied off a computer while I was disinfecting it.

 

[a space oddity]

Maybe the virus is alive in its environment only. In that environment we are like gods: we can turn their world 'off', ending their existence in our world and since we created it, in theirs too.

And yes if you extrapolate that to our reality maybe there is a higher form of reality which we can't perceive. The reality where computer virii live is real in our world though. You can compare it to dimensions, a line from A to B is 'real' to us. A 10-dimensional box is not.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Igloo, yeah thats true. If we decide that computer viruses are alive, would we all have to uninstall our antivirus programs? Or maybe we would have to manage viruses the way we manage wildlife. Some viruses would be 'endangered' and protected, while others would be abundant and permissable to delete or quarantine? Or probably, you would be seen as a doctor, instead of technician. Computer viruses would become like organic viruses. 'Organisms' that have to be eradicated.

 

[a space oddity]

Come on guys, we don't feel qualms about 'chemical' virii either do you? BTW are they alive according to you?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Maybe the virus is alive in its environment only. In that environment we are like gods: we can turn their world 'off', ending their existence in our world and since we created it, in theirs too.

And yes if you extrapolate that to our reality maybe there is a higher form of reality which we can't perceive. The reality where computer virii live is real in our world though. You can compare it to dimensions, a line from A to B is 'real' to us. A 10-dimensional box is not.

Yep, now at last we're getting to the meat of the issue. I wouldnt say that computer viruses live on our world though, they live in a world we created for them...Their world is embedded in our own, but not truly part of it.

 

[betazed]

~ "Life accelerates entropy around itself and decelerates it inside itself"

You mean it continually decreases entropy in its inside and increases it on the outside.

Hmm.. sounds good. So now the rules stand as

1. The ability to absorb matter and energy (M&E) from the environment. (Pothead)
2. The ability to process M&E from the environment. (Pothead)
3. The ability to maintain a "boundary" between the interior and exterior
4. it continually decreases entropy in its inside and increases it on the outside (inside and outside defined by the boundary in item 3.)

So far so good. I cannot seem to find anything that is life and violated any of the 4 above. neither can I find something that has all the 4 above and is not life.

But I am sure we have missed something. Let's keep thinking.

 

[CivCube]

Technically, a biological virus is nothing but genetic code, isn't it?

 

[a space oddity]

Do virii ('chemical' ones ) fit the bill? I'm not a biologist, so while I'm quite sure they fit 3 and 4, I'm not sure about 1 and 2.

 

[betazed]

Do virii ('chemical' ones ) fit the bill? I'm not a biologist, so while I'm quite sure they fit 3 and 4, I'm not sure about 1 and 2.

Well, virii multiply. How could they multiply without using external resources? So I am sure they fit 1 & 2. Actually I am not sure what is the difference between 1 & 2. maybe they should be combined. I propose

1. The ability to use (redirect thru themselves) matter and energy(M&E) from the environment. (Pothead)
2. The ability to maintain a "boundary" between the interior and exterior
3. it continually decreases entropy in its inside and increases it on the outside (inside and outside defined by the boundary in item 3.)