what is life?

[eytanz]

But the plans for cities aren't stored in humans either

Anyway, Mr. Tweedy, thanks for that last post - I think I finally understand what you are saying. Now I just need to figure out a reason to have a definition for life, and then I can see if yours is a helpful one...

[wakela]

In Ray Kurzweil's book, "The Age of Spiritual Machines" he says that there may be no way to tell if computers of the future are truly intelligent and self-aware.  But they will act like they are, and they will tell us they are, and we will believe them.  I think you could make a similar statement about whether they will be alive.

[slic]

But they will act like they are, and they will tell us they are, and we will believe them.  I think you could make a similar statement about whether they will be alive.

I certainly agree with that.  If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, lays eggs like a duck, and all round acts like a duck, I'm going to call it a duck, and more importantly treat it like a duck, even if truly it is a cleverly made robot with small green men running it.


As for the city, Mr. Tweedy is making an excellent point.  If all the people left Chicago tomorrow, Chicago would "die", so too would a human if every colony of living objects left the body.  However, unless they are the worms living inside Fry (Parisites Lost), they aren't planning the latest construction project in my colon.  Theoretically with today's science, I could go on existing via Sterile Rooms and IV drips.

However, there was an excellent short story (name forgotten) where nanobots played the roles of the intelligent worms, and they re-configured the host woman's body to be a healthy, old woman.  They rationalized that it was the safest "form" to take.  Then she bungie jumped off a bridge to show them who was boss....

[Thaurismunths]

Mr. Tweedy,
The point you have been trying to avoid, and the basis of your argument, is that you believe that "life" has been "designed" by something "intelligent" that isn’t human.

I've brought this to your attention privately, but here we are again, so I'm going to say it publicly:
Once again you are steering this conversation, by way of your illusive definitions, towards yet another "God or No God" conversation. You believe that a thing exists by Intelligent Design and aren't demonstrating any will to accept other possibilities. You argue under the guise of expanding your horizons, but refuse to have them budged at all, thus rendering any speculative topic like "What is life?" not only pointless but frustrating. You already have all the answers: God.

I am a god-loving man, and think it is truly great that you have such a firm commitment to your faith, but as you have nothing more to add to this conversation than "I say god did it." the rest of it is just you arguing the fundamental point of "God or No God." In the previous speculative conversations you have been an integral part of you bring all of the conversation down to an (as yet) unanswerable question: "Is there god?"
ID vs. Nature ultimately comes down to God or No God.
Predestination vs. Free Will: God or No God
Big Claim/Little Claim: God or No God
This is a loose/loose situation for the rest of us because while those who are being objective can accept either "No God" or "Might be a god" as an answer, your faith can only allow "There is a God." or at most "It's ok if you say there isn't a god, I say there is."
In asking these questions, or getting involved in a conversation, when you already have an answer in mind your speculation is just a way for you to sharpen you theological arguments in defense of your belief system on an unwitting SF forum.
I don't believe for one second that anything said here will change your mind one iota about your view on the questions you post, but in the mean time you rile other to defend themselves from you inflexible views.

This thread was a lot of fun for the first two pages or so when we were all groping about to answer you question, but you weren't, and aren't, trying to reach a middle ground the encompasses your views and ours, you are trying to argue us all over to your side. That isn't debate or problem solving, that is evangelizing.

I can't pass judgment on whether this was intentional on your part, or merely ignorance, but I'm not up for playing with you any more. This isn't my cup of tea.

[edit: Address]

[eytanz]

Thaurismunths - huh? Who are you even directing that at? Mr. Tweedy? Slic? Myself? All three of us?

You seem to be attacking someone for - I'm not even entirely sure what. Not fulfilling some expectation you've had about how this thread will go? Or maybe for fulfilling it? I'm really confused now.

[SFEley]

Do you suppose today's story selection was influenced by this thread?

I haven't read anything on the Gallimaufry board in about two weeks, so the definitive answer is "No."  And the intro was almost entirely ripped off from the essay I wrote for Geek Fu 100.  That essay was written in bits and pieces over the course of two days at Balticon in between speaking, drinking, laughing, and kissing cute women (and a couple of cute men).  Except for the bits that were about Mur, any sense of connection to specific events, persons, or threads is selective perception.

Folks...  If you don't want to have arguments like this, don't.  Yeah, I know the temptation.  I do it way too often myself.  But we're all here to Have Fun, right?  I'm not going to form an opinion on the motivations of anyone in this thread (for one thing, I've only skimmed it); but I will say that for a debate to take place at all requires at least two willing participants.  Nothing in the world hinges on this particular discussion.

[SFEley]

Humans in a city are not like mitochondria in a cell*.  A cell is busy doing its own work, and it relies on the mitochondria for important help.  A cell is involved in myriad activities in which the mitochondria play a very limited role.  Not so with a city.  Chicago is not busy doing its own work while relying on its human residents for limited assistance.  Humans do all the work.  Humans play all the roles.

Did you by any chance listen to "Observations From the City of Angels?"

You might enjoy it.

[Thaurismunths]

Thaurismunths - huh? Who are you even directing that at? Mr. Tweedy? Slic? Myself? All three of us?

You seem to be attacking someone for - I'm not even entirely sure what. Not fulfilling some expectation you've had about how this thread will go? Or maybe for fulfilling it? I'm really confused now.

Sorry, that's directed at Mr. Tweedy.

[eytanz]

Ok. I can't see why, though, except that perhaps you expected something different from him than he was willing, or able, to offer. It's true that he has not been changing his view of life, but what in the world gives you the right to demand of him that he change his views? He certainly never intimated that he was going to. I've been just as inflexible as he has - I've been demanding explanations of him and offering none in return, and I've made no attempt to change my views on anything here, nor did I feel he expected me to.

It seems to me that there is an interesting discussion going on here that has absolutely nothing to do with God, and at least Tweedy and I, and I believe also Slic and Wakela and ClintMemo, are engaged in it. If this is not the discussion you want to be having, I'm sorry, but don't attack other people for not saying what you want them to say.

It's certainly not fair to claim that he has nothing to add to this thread other than "God exists", since I certainly learned something from him - a viewpoint that I find instructive, even if I don't share his beliefs. Which I most certainly don't.

[Thaurismunths]

Ok. I can't see why, though, except that perhaps you expected something different from him than he was willing, or able, to offer. It's true that he has not been changing his view of life, but what in the world gives you the right to demand of him that he change his views? He certainly never intimated that he was going to. I've been just as inflexible as he has - I've been demanding explanations of him and offering none in return, and I've made no attempt to change my views on anything here, nor did I feel he expected me to.

It seems to me that there is an interesting discussion going on here that has absolutely nothing to do with God, and at least Tweedy and I, and I believe also Slic and Wakela and ClintMemo, are engaged in it. If this is not the discussion you want to be having, I'm sorry, but don't attack other people for not saying what you want them to say.

It's certainly not fair to claim that he has nothing to add to this thread other than "God exists", since I certainly learned something from him - a viewpoint that I find instructive, even if I don't share his beliefs. Which I most certainly don't.

You are very probably right.
My comments are based off of a private conversation I've had with Mr. Tweedy, my personal opinions, and a trend I see in his line of logic.

-T

[slic]

It seems to me that there is an interesting discussion going on here that has absolutely nothing to do with God...

I wouldn't say that entirely.  I've been giving Mr. Tweedy the benefit of the doubt (and still am) that he has intentionally steered clear of the actual catch words, but you can see the glimmer of them behind his arguements.

Having not been privy to the private conversation, I'm not sure where to come down on Thaurismunths' "reveal".  However, it is fair for him to bring up the point that argueing with someone who has a set mind can be seen as misleading.

It's not fair to say you've been inflexible, eytanz, because you haven't come up with a definition - you just have accepted any here.  "They're not good enough" is not the same as "I know you're wrong."

[Bdoomed]

*sigh* well that got ugly for a bit, but it seems like things have been semi-sorted out.  From what I see, Tweedy did have a slight hint of his usual debate in there, but he wasnt trying to start anything from it...  Thaurismunths, you overreacted.  Yer both bad, go to your rooms!

Lets just leave it at that.

I'd offer something to the discussion right now but it is way too late, just got off from work, and I'm tired and I want to sleep.  My brain refuses to work right now.

[Russell Nash]

Now that we've had a cooling off period, I'll throw out a thought.  I think we're going to end up using the "pornography standard". 

I can't really define life, but I know it when I see it.


Edit: Spelling

[Mr. Tweedy]

No, I am not trying to evangelize here.  I couldn't anyway, because my own view has been developing as we go along.  The idea of symbiosis has been revealed to me as far more important than I had considered, for instance, to the point where I'm wondering if you can have life without symbiosis.

It's actually very silly to accuse me of staging a covert argument for God because I said almost at beginning that I think a robot could be alive.  It would be a very circuitous route to go from saying that humans could make life out of metal to saying that we need the God of the Bible to do it.  That's not where I was headed.  I wasn't headed anywhere, actually: I never had a final destination in mind.  Like I said at the start, "what is life" is a question I never really thought about.

[Holden]

In today’s blog post, Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) argues that jet planes are alive and people are jet poop. I thought it was funny and it reminded me of this thread.

I feel the need to point out that I am posting this link here as an act of humor to lighten up the thread. This is not a serious contribution to the argument. In fact, it's not serious at all.

A link to Scott Adam's blog: http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/

[wherethewild]

Just for any interested people: scientists working towards synthetic life:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19526114.000?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg19526114.000

[Mr. Tweedy]

I'm still interested, at least.  Thanks for the link.