Which is why viruses are questionable. They can reproduce, but only with the help of a host organism.

And what about sterile offspring like donkeys, they cannot reproduce, but are surely living?

Metabolism is another criterion used. But then, maybe a car metabolizes gasoline to propel it.

The most certain thing about it is that it is not simple.

 

"Ability to reproduce" is commonly cited as part of what it means to be alive, along with (according to the Oxford dictionary) "the capacity for growth, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." But if you take exception to the circular logic of life being defined by death which is defined by life, you may consider that every living thing is made of cells that divide. Donkeys and fetuses may not be able to reproduce but they are made of cells that reproduce, so they are living. I think this is the best simple answer.

 

If a collection of non-living components can come together to form my body which then gives rise to sentience, why is it so inconceivable that a different spatial arrangement of the same stuff couldn't give rise to a different kind of sentience in something as trivial as a volcano.

If the argument is what is life, then first we would have to agree on a definition local to this topic as the mainstream definition is constantly being rewritten.

I challenge anyone to come up with a list and I will attempt to show how many boxes a volcano or a rock ticks to qualify for life.

This topic reminds me of a Star Trek episode where Data is on trial for his life. The trial is to determine if he is really alive or just a machine really good at fooling everyone.

"You see, he's met two of your three criteria for sentience, so what if he meets the third, consciousness, in even the smallest degree? What is he then? I don't know. Do you?"

 

Data doesn't feel remorse or guilt for possible past mistakes.

Data doesn't worry about being perceived by others as
being "correct" when there are arbitrary unknown factors in a question or problem.

Data doesn't need sleep.

Data doesn't experience "Peer-Pressure".

Data doesn't need "Time-Off", or Entertainment,
and the lack of the same doesn't impair his computing ability.

Data has no aspirations.

Data is not competitive, and does not compare himself to anything or anyone.

Data can not "Die" and then consciously "reincarnate" himself into a new body.

Data does not wonder where he came from.

Data doesn't Dream.

Data doesn't have an Imagination.

Data has no Intuition.

Data can't be "brainwashed" with mere verbal communication.

Data can't be "Fooled", "Persuaded", or "Threatened" into doing
something that he's not programmed for.

Data doesn't get lonely.

Data can only be programmed to display the outward "Apparency" of experiencing
any of the above "Emotions", which he can't actually experience.
.
.
.

 

Data can only be programmed to display the outward "Apparency" of experiencing
any of the above "Emotions", which he can't actually experience.

Whether or not any of these are actual criteria for being “alive” or having “personhood”, your conclusion is just question-begging. You are simply asserting your conclusion with no proof, the argument is circular.

How do you know that Data doesn’t ”actually experience” those, or other things? To put a fine point on it, how do you know that anyone aside from yourself experiences those or other things?

This is a vexed question that has philosophers over a barrel. Even with the most formal and intensive efforts to answer this question, it comes down to the problem of measurement. Our internal lives can’t be seen from outside.

Even if we were to record and characteristic and every electrochemical action of the body, nervous system, and brain we would not have an answer to the question of experience. Even if our experience is the result of physics—and I believe it is—is is not in itself physics.

The problem of qualia may never be resolved. It seems likely to me it will evade answering. But i also believe that even if our consciousness is entirely rooted in physicality, our experience is something that can’t be explained by it.. And, though Data is fictional, assuming his “positronic brain” is of sufficient complexity a ”real” consciousness could arise from it.

So, from the outside you can no more declaim that Data doesn’t experience than the I do.

[EDIT: typos and unaccountable bizarre edit side effects]

 

Rocks, volcanoes, and Data are not made from cells that divide. They are not alive.

Rocks can be considered protected monuments; this is philosophical, not biological.

Volcanoes can be considered protected newt habitats; this is somewhat biological but mostly philosophical.

Data can be considered sentient; this is philosophical, not biological.

 

If a collection of non-living components can come together to form my body which then gives rise to sentience,

Are you made of paper and mortar then?

 

If a collection of non-living components can come together to form my body which then gives rise to sentience, why is it so inconceivable that a different spatial arrangement of the same stuff couldn't give rise to a different kind of sentience in something as trivial as a volcano.

One of the current solutions to the problem of the discontinuity of consciousness—non-coscsious matter suddenly acquiring self awareness—is pan-psychism. This path contends that whatever consciousness is, it is already "in" the matter that forms self-aware beings, that is "persons".

This doesn't mean that it is "like something" to be a sofa or a bone, these things have the necessary property but an insufficient arrangement of the parts. I think it is a good start on dealing with Descartes' vexed mind-body dualism.

It requires no fundamental change or external properly whose source is so problematic, only the matter of which we persons are formed. properly arranged.

 

And what about sterile offspring like donkeys, they cannot reproduce, but are surely living?

I think you meant Horse/Jackass crossbred hybrids, like Mules. And in rare cases, mules can reproduce. It seems that life abhors absolutes.

 

"" Our internal lives can’t be seen from outside. ""

This is where I differ ..........
The reason that most people can't see "what's inside" of others is because of
FEAR of their Peers ostracizing them for even entertaining such a possibility.

""YOUR-CRAZY"", and that investigation, or any further questioning, or research
gets quickly "nipped in the bud", all completely self-inflicted.

People continually "check-themselves" and look for
"outside" validation of their Communication, and their Actions, from others
because being seen as "Crazy" might be a virtual social death sentence, ( or so they imagine ).
And since most people are living on the edge of disaster,
they are not willing to take on any additional risks.

This keeps a tremendous amount of VERY VALUABLE information out of general circulation.
.
.
.

 

"" Our internal lives can’t be seen from outside. ""

This is where I differ ..........
The reason that most people can't see "what's inside" of others is because of
FEAR of their Peers ostracizing them for even entertaining such a possibility.

""YOUR-CRAZY"", and that investigation, or any further questioning, or research
gets quickly "nipped in the bud", all completely self-inflicted.

People continually "check-themselves" and look for
"outside" validation of their Communication, and their Actions, from others
because being seen as "Crazy" might be a virtual social death sentence, ( or so they imagine ).
And since most people are living on the edge of disaster,
they are not willing to take on any additional risks.

This keeps a tremendous amount of VERY VALUABLE information out of general circulation.
.
.
.

I guarantee you the people most concerned with a rigorous answer to this question—legitimate philosophers—do not suffer from shyness or a need to conform to conventional explanations. They are looking for a what to explain things that fits the evidence, and if something actually does, it gets incorporated.

They surely don't all agree on explanations but there is a an overwhelming consensus that our inner experience is inaccessible to anyone but ourselves. I agree with this. Having explored the possibility of supernatural explanations, that is explanations that posit a secondary system, or one that cannot be measured but somehow can still affect the natural world, I can't endorse it as a productive direction.

Sincere efforts to find something effective in that domain failed to turn up anything, and not from ignorance or lack of trying. We are, each of us, alone in this way. We know we exist because of our experience, and since that experience is happening at the very least that sort of existence is as well.

But aside from that, we have no explanation of phenomena like qualia, and the subject is so vexing many philosophers have taken the often used path of simply calling it an ill-formed question, something that due to lack of measurable attributes is just not something to explore.

I was once talking to Marvin Minsky who was a prominent researcher in many fields, but in AI in particular, at MIT. We were talking about mysticism and I said, "But Marvin, you have to admit that somehow, on some level the universe¹ is singular, since we consider there to be just one". He answered "Yes, of course, but if I started thinking that way I would kill myself. I have never met a physics researcher who started out on that path and ever did anything useful afterwards".

He was saying there was something attractive in pondering it, but that even if there was something in it, it leads you away from the rigor of the measurable and calculable. To him "useful" meant advancing physical theories based on these putatively objective characteristics.

So, I don't believe that you have some special access to things that brilliant, sincere, and rigorous people who have devoted their lives to working out these explanations have somehow missed. It's just not a reasonable assertion. Every claim of efficacy concerning such things I have pursued has vanished into nebulous vapor like a cloud that seems to substantial from a distance but can't really be found up close.

1. ...or multiverse. or whatever you'd like to insert it always comes down to the idea there is a totality, and that is just one thing. This point is not a standalone proof of anything, it was germane to the discussion of the moment, and provoked his remarked which I wanted to recount.

 

An excellent summation .........
There remains a Fly in the ointment though,
that VERY LIMITING factor,
"Objectivity".

Trying to apply Objectivity,
to something that is NOT an "Object",
( Matter, Energy, Space, and Time ),
is never going to go anywhere.

On the other hand,
if certain "un-provable", seemingly arbitrary, assumptions can be postulated to exist,
which operate within an understandable, and repeatable, set of "rules",
then certain paranormal phenomenon can be duplicated by way of the "Scientific-Method",
whereby others can reproduce the same, or very similar results.

But, of course, this pursuit will normally end abruptly the instant that it is
discovered that it can't be seen under a Microscope,
or held in your hand, or put in a glass display-case, or sold on Amazon.

Then there is the huge hurdle of .........
Who's going to pay me Money to pursue this subject-matter, "I gotta make a livin' ya know".

There are also mounting instances whereby
research materials change, or react differently, depending upon exactly "who" is looking at them.
I can speculate reasonably well on why and how this occurs,
unfortunately, the incredibly well educated, genius-I.Q. Scientists involved are completely baffled,
AND ARE AFRAID TO SAY ANYTHING,
as they could lose their funding, and even their Credentials, and/or reputation.

The U.S. Military is well aware that these apparent anomalies exist,
and they've been taking advantage of them since around World-War-II.
For instance, they employ "Remote-Viewing" extensively.

Then there's the matter of who do YOU consider to be an "Authority" on a particular subject.

In my world, anyone who accepts the title of "Authority" is in serious doubt.

Only "Valuable-Final-Products" count in the long-run, not "Who's-more-Right".

Can I use this information to create a better Life for myself or others ?, that's all that constitutes "Truth".

If a person needs "Proof", or the blessings of "Authority",
they won't get anywhere on this subject, and will remain blind to it.
.
.
.

 

@LowQCab,

Just to once, could you please supply some evidence for your outrageous claims?

How about this one:

The U.S. Military is well aware that these apparent anomalies exist,
and they've been taking advantage of them since around World-War-II.
For instance, they employ "Remote-Viewing" extensively.

I am well aware of the program where they studied it and concluded thst it provided no useful information. Do you have something beyond that?

 

And what about sterile offspring like donkeys, they cannot reproduce, but are surely living?

The cells inside donkeys, mules, drone bees all divide by mitosis and asexually reproduce in the growth of the organism.

 

I must be reading the room incorrectly. I thought we were looking to science (biology) for the answer of what is alive. Apparently the long-winded philosophical debate is more intriguing, and I suppose that's why the biology textbook favored it over the correct answer.

 

I must be reading the room incorrectly. I thought we were looking to science (biology) for the answer of what is alive. Apparently the long-winded philosophical debate is more intriguing, and I suppose that's why the biology textbook favored it over the correct answer.

What does science say? What do you say?

 

"" Just to once, could you please supply some evidence for your outrageous claims? ""
Evidence of this general subject comes in the form of a personal experience,
an "Epiphany" if You will.
There's a ton of completely new concepts to learn, so You have to really want to figure things out.
If you're looking for a way to discredit,
you'll have plenty to work with, and that will be the end of that.

The following link is an interview with Penny Kelly,
who is in her mid-"80's, and is also an Engineer and Scientist.
It's an hour and a half long, so I suggest watching at 1.5X Speed.
This particular interview is largely about Crop-Circles,
but contains quite a few other subjects as well.
I hope it intrigues You.

.
.
.

 

Oh, goody. Crop circles.

This particular interview is largely about Crop-Circles,
but contains quite a few other subjects as well.
I hope it intrigues You..

Oh, boy! Crop Circles. Here is one of my favorites...

 

"" I am well aware of the program where they studied it
and concluded thst it provided no useful information ""
Have You ever heard of a thing called a "Disinformation Campaign" ?
Nahh .... don't look there, look over hear, forget about that other stuff, it was just a Wild-Goose-Chase !!!

Do You think they're going to tell You about "Secret-Programs",
which would, at the same time, tell our Enemies all about them too ?
Or, wouldn't they like to convince our Enemies that
the Project was considered a complete failure, and abandoned.

Find out about a Book called - The Art of War.

When I get a minute I'll find You a Link to Dick Algier, an actual retired Military-Remote-Viewer.
.
.
.

 

Evidence of this general subject comes in the form of a personal experience,
an "Epiphany" if You will.

Are you saying you can perform remote viewing yourself? If so, that can be tested. Sadly, Randi is no longer with us and the million dollar challenge for demonstrating a paranormal ability is no longer offered.

But that is not what I was asking for anyway. I asked for evidence for your claim that the U.S. military uses remote viewing. Whether or not it works is not even relevant to that ciaim.