Almost, but not quite: A fire is not made out of organic matter, because it is not matter at all but energy. Granted, organic matter is one of the causes of fire, but not the thing itself, as an effect is a different thing than its cause. — Samuel Lacrampe

Fire is not just energy; it is a process in which organic matter oxidises rapidly.

Fire fits the list indeed, but I wonder if you could find a satisfactory exception for my definition too:

"Intelligence" (decisions from "memory" (stored data of any kind)) capable of increasing the complexity of it's decision making through unguided or emergent processes.

I'd like to go out on a limb and try to defend the following definition of life: Self perpetuating intelligence. Any and all criticisms would be appreciated.
...
By "self-perpetuating" I don't mean "able to reproduce" or "emerged on it's own", but rather that the "intelligence" itself (the complex decision making (involves memory)) is capable of internal development (an increase in complexity). This is what differentiates a smart phone as non-life from mold as life: the mold can evolve and get smarter.

From this, here are some examples of things that qualify as life:

Human consciousness
Grass
single-cells
Mitochondria
"Artificial" intelligence — VagabondSpectre

The first one is the least qualified to be on the list. Sure, humans, but human consciousness does not seem in any way to be a life form. It is not self-perpetuating, and seems to be debatably an effect as much as an agent for decision making. A human is intelligent, not the consciousness itself, unless the consciousness is defined as a synonym for the immaterial entity as dualist commonly use the term, in which case we're not talking about physical life at all, and we have no data about reproducability or capability of increase in complexity

You label the function of DNA as "intelligent.decision making" which stretches the definition of the words. Plenty of complexity there, but does it qualify as decision making?

Kindly comment on my definition of "an unnatural persistent pattern". I had wondered if religion qualified as a life form since it meets a lot of qualifications, especially reproduction. But I decided it was like the fire: It is a process that naturally (inevitably) happens with sufficient fuel laying around and is thus natural, not unnatural. Concerning fire:

Almost, but not quite: A fire is not made out of organic matter, because it is not matter at all but energy. Granted, organic matter is one of the causes of fire, but not the thing itself, as an effect is a different thing than its cause. — Samuel Lacrampe

Fire is a process, just like life, and I have already stated that life being organic is a circular definition and excludes anything that isn't exactly like us. We want a definition of life, not of Earth life. Fire is not life because it is natural, even though I'm not sure there would be fire at all on Earth if not for the life on which it feeds. Imagine a lifeless Earth. What would burn? Methane is inorganic, but without free oxygen, it's not going to burn.

I suggest to limit the discussion to material life for now. — Samuel Lacrampe

Agree to that, but that means consciousness is not life, at least not by material definitions. There can be life without it, and consciousness without life. They're separate things.

So the new list for material life is as follows:
- proper functioning of the object's parts
- needs a form of energy — Samuel Lacrampe

The first is part of the definition of 'alive', not of life. It need not be an object. Life is a process, and processes require energy, living or not. So I would reject both these items. A clock that has stopped due to lack of winding meets this definition. I like the definition above better (self-perpetuating intelligence).

AI by itself is not necessarily self-perpetuating. They have AI now, but certainly it has not achieved self-reliance. What they often call AI, such as in a self-driving car, is not true AI. It is a straight automaton executing very specific code. Done correctly, the car should learn from mistakes and share that knowledge with the other cars. I don't think it currently works that way.

The first one is the least qualified to be on the list. Sure, humans, but human consciousness does not seem in any way to be a life form. It is not self-perpetuating, and seems to be debatably an effect as much as an agent for decision making. A human is intelligent, not the consciousness itself, unless the consciousness is defined as a synonym for the immaterial entity as dualist commonly use the term, in which case we're not talking about physical life at all, and we have no data about reproducability or capability of increase in complexity — noAxioms

O.K, let's talk about the brain then, along with it's accompanying nervous systems. The structure of the brain and it's goings on is what produces human intelligence, and we know that as the human brain acquires data it has the capacity to increase in complexity and sophistication in the decisions it makes.

You label the function of DNA as "intelligent.decision making" which stretches the definition of the words. Plenty of complexity there, but does it qualify as decision making? — noAxioms

It must.

Not only does our DNA in fact make decisions for us (like when to mate for instance), but it also uses data it gathers from the environment through trial and error in order to increase it's own internal complexity and sophistication in decision making.

A human is actually DNA's way of making more, and better, DNA.

It's too vague to be understood.

Let me try to be more specific:

"Life" is any entity capable of intelligent reaction to it's environment.

We still mostly have the problem of defining "intelligence" on our hands, and this is still somewhat vague, but life is vague. If mitochondria is alive, a human cell is alive, and a human brain is alive, what does "alive" mean?

A common denominator I'm interested in exploring is the way that these examples of "life" perpetuate their own existence by recording data to guide their decision making. The mitochondria and the individual cell does it through DNA, and the human brain does it by storing information via connected neurons.

I'm having a hard time finding a good example of non-life which performs this function, or an example of life which does not.

I used the earth's electromagnetic dynamo as a test of Robert Rosen's notions about life (because there's some positive feedback to it.) I eventually decided Rosen is right. When we talk about life, it's in terms of final cause. Pervasively, organisms act on behalf of themselves. Mechanisms don't.

"Life" is any entity capable of intelligent reaction to it's environment. — VagabondSpectre

This would only work is intelligent were better understood than life. It isn't.

My point here is not to assist in deriving a suitable definition; that should be left to biologists rather than philosophers. It is rather to make the philosophical point that we do not need definitions in order to talk effectively about things, that for example we do not need a definition of life in order to tell the living from the non-living.

Banno is correct in that we're not going to get the definition we're looking for since it is too vague. Fun trying though. You still haven't commented on my attempt. It probably has counter-examples but its hard to see exceptions to one's own rule.

O.K, let's talk about the brain then, along with it's accompanying nervous systems. The structure of the brain and it's goings on is what produces human intelligence, and we know that as the human brain acquires data it has the capacity to increase in complexity and sophistication in the decisions it makes. — VagabondSpectre

The brain has no such capacity. A human (or other creature) does, but a brain by itself can do none of this. Don't ascribe life to just one part of the functioning machine. Brains are not life forms any more than a car engine can get me to Chicago. A brain is also not consciousness. The processes of the brain might be, but the processes are not an object, and neither of them is life.

Not only does our DNA in fact make decisions for us (like when to mate for instance), but it also uses data it gathers from the environment through trial and error in order to increase it's own internal complexity and sophistication in decision making.

A human is actually DNA's way of making more, and better, DNA. — VagabondSpectre

Does DNA make the decision as to when to mate? I mean, suppose my male DNA was suddenly changed to something else at say prepubescent age 12, let's say to that of a male gorilla or a female human. Would that change the decision? Arguably it would, but most of the physiology of when that change takes place is already there and not really a function of DNA. I'm not enough of a biologist to support or deny the claim.

The DNA is of course responsible for the design of said physiology that eventually makes the actual decision to hit puberty. But the DNA doesn't seem to do the instinctive work, it just hires the contractors that do it.

This would only work if intelligent were better understood than life. It isn't. — Banno

Decoding the physics and chemistry of human intelligence is well behind other fields of biology, but what about artificial intelligence? Granted we don't have a true one yet, machine learning is already extraordinarily powerful. Would an "artificial intelligence" qualify as a form of life? I would say so, which to me means we need programmers to go with our biologists in search of the definition of life. We aren't in dire need of a rigid or flawless definition, as you say (if there is one), but it's intriguing to see how close we can reasonably come.

Kindly comment on my definition of "an unnatural persistent pattern". I had wondered if religion qualified as a life form since it meets a lot of qualifications, especially reproduction. But I decided it was like the fire: It is a process that naturally (inevitably) happens with sufficient fuel laying around and is thus natural, not unnatural. — noAxioms

Anomalous "persistent patterns" seems like a broad and rough but fair description that applies to "life", but intuitively life is more than just a complex persistent pattern; it's a particular kind of complex pattern. It's a pattern that, for example, records large amounts of data in hierarchical structures which is used to inform behavior in a way that anticipates it's environment. Life reacts to it's environment with intelligence.

Religion is an interesting metaphor for life (and vice versa) because it shows how complex behavior (self-propagation) can result from recorded data, but the self-proliferation of religion is largely an abstraction of the behavior of already living humans, not strictly behavior of the religion itself (which has no internal decision making property of it's own and is mostly intelligently developed by humans themselves).

The brain has no such capacity. A human (or other creature) does, but a brain by itself can do none of this. Don't ascribe life to just one part of the functioning machine. Brains are not life forms any more than a car engine can get me to Chicago. A brain is also not consciousness. The processes of the brain might be, but the processes are not an object, and neither of them is life. — noAxioms

A beating heart is not "life" in and of itself, although the cells which comprise it individually could be considered "alive" and a satisfactory example of "life" (even though removed from their system they quickly die). That said, the brain, along with it's accompanying nervous systems is what connects parts of the machine together. The body is the machine but the brain is the conductor. The brain produces consciousness, and consciousness itself surely qualifies as "life".

Does DNA make the decision as to when to mate? I mean, suppose my male DNA was suddenly changed to something else at say prepubescent age 12, let's say to that of a male gorilla or a female human. Would that change the decision? Arguably it would, but most of the physiology of when that change takes place is already there and not really a function of DNA. I'm not enough of a biologist to support or deny the claim.

The DNA is of course responsible for the design of said physiology that eventually makes the actual decision to hit puberty. But the DNA doesn't seem to do the instinctive work, it just hires the contractors that do it. — noAxioms

Creating biological "life" is what DNA does and it plays many roles which influence the behavior of the life it does produce. (Sort of how the brain produces consciousness and influences it's behavior). Yes the causal vehicles DNA uses to influence conscious behavior are indirect and not fully understood (especially by me), but the human body does interact with it's own genetic code on an ongoing basis, so it might not be long before alterations to genetic code could cause things like production of the wrong hormones, and undesirable behavior in certain types of cells (increased rates of division for example), both of which could be catastrophic.

You might start inexplicably banging your chest or find that you have mood changes during full moons.

Decoding the physics and chemistry of human intelligence is well behind other fields of biology, but what about artificial intelligence? Granted we don't have a true one yet, machine learning is already extraordinarily powerful. — VagabondSpectre

I would differ on this opinion. We have AI that learns, but it is not life. We have some very non-AI computer code that much more qualifies as life. You seem to ascribe more intelligence to mitochondria than to an AI that can, from looking at a snapshot of your skin, distinguish melanoma from benign conditions, better than a well trained doctor of dermatology. But the cancer-detecting AI is not making decisions for the benefit of its continued existence.

We aren't in dire need of a rigid or flawless definition, as you say (if there is one), but it's intriguing to see how close we can reasonably come. — VagabondSpectre

Of what need do we have at all for a definition? Suppose we had a perfect rigid definition. What would benefit from it? What argument (besides "is this life?") would be laid to rest with such a definition at our disposal? It just seems to be an unimportant language issue to me.

Anomalous "persistent patterns" seems like a broad and rough but fair description that applies to "life", but intuitively life is more than just a complex persistent pattern; it's a particular kind of complex pattern. It's a pattern that, for example, records large amounts of data in hierarchical structures which is used to inform behavior in a way that anticipates it's environment. Life reacts to it's environment with intelligence. — VagabondSpectre

Those all seem to be the means to achieve the persistence. If the persistence can be had without data storage, I think it would still be life. Would help if I could come up with an example.
There are plenty of life forms too primitive to anticipate their environment, and they persist more by prolific reproduction than to actually influence behavior.

Religion is an interesting metaphor for life (and vice versa) because it shows how complex behavior (self-propagation) can result from recorded data, but the self-proliferation of religion is largely an abstraction of the behavior of already living humans, not strictly behavior of the religion itself (which has no internal decision making property of it's own and is mostly intelligently developed by humans themselves). — VagabondSpectre

Human minds (and eventually written records) are the medium in which religions live, but religions are not humans, and are not objects any more than fire is an object. It does reproduce and evolve, but I decided it was too natural (inevitable) to meet my definition.

The brain has no such capacity. A human (or other creature) does, but a brain by itself can do none of this. Don't ascribe life to just one part of the functioning machine. Brains are not life forms any more than a car engine can get me to Chicago. A brain is also not consciousness. The processes of the brain might be, but the processes are not an object, and neither of them is life.
— noAxioms

A beating heart is not "life" in and of itself, although the cells which comprise it individually could be considered "alive" and a satisfactory example of "life" (even though removed from their system they quickly die). That said, the brain, along with it's accompanying nervous systems is what connects parts of the machine together. The body is the machine but the brain is the conductor. The brain produces consciousness, and consciousness itself surely qualifies as "life". — VagabondSpectre

I disagreed with this above. You can have either without the other, so they're different things. The brain is just a part, an essential one to a human, but not the only essential one, and certainly not essential to be life, since most life doesn't have one. It can be alive, or can be a dead brain, but it is not itself life.

Creating biological "life" is what DNA does — VagabondSpectre

We have no clear definition, and DNA seems a tool to perpetuate life, but I would never say it creates it. It seems that at no point is non-life transformed into life by DNA.

You might start inexplicably banging your chest ... — VagabondSpectre

True that. I'm the first to admit our behavior is more chemical than circuitry. Imagine what the ape DNA would do instead of just the female DNA. :s

I would differ on this opinion. We have AI that learns, but it is not life. We have some very non-AI computer code that much more qualifies as life. You seem to ascribe more intelligence to mitochondria than to an AI that can, from looking at a snapshot of your skin, distinguish melanoma from benign conditions, better than a well trained doctor of dermatology. But the cancer-detecting AI is not making decisions for the benefit of its continued existence. — noAxioms

I didn't quantify/compare AI with mitochondria intelligence. That's apples to oranges.

Why would a fully functional AI that can think and act on it's own behalf not be considered alive?

Of what need do we have at all for a definition? Suppose we had a perfect rigid definition. What would benefit from it? What argument (besides "is this life?") would be laid to rest with such a definition at our disposal? It just seems to be an unimportant language issue to me. — noAxioms

It's about trying to understand what makes life life. The hunt for a sensical definition is tied to our efforts to try and comprehend how and why life does what it does. If we had a better understanding of how carbon based life organizes itself, we might have a better idea of how non-carbon based life might also organize itself.

Those all seem to be the means to achieve the persistence. If the persistence can be had without data storage, I think it would still be life. Would help if I could come up with an example.
There are plenty of life forms too primitive to anticipate their environment, and they persist more by prolific reproduction than to actually influence behavior. — noAxioms

Not all life successfully anticipates it's environment, but prolific reproduction as a means of ensuring long term survival does anticipate the environment. It anticipates harsh conditions, and uses numbers as a strategy to overcome them.

Human minds (and eventually written records) are the medium in which religions live, but religions are not humans, and are not objects any more than fire is an object. It does reproduce and evolve, but I decided it was too natural (inevitable) to meet my definition — noAxioms

Natural vs unnatural (inevitable vs avoidable) is a red herring loaded with baggage. How can you tell the difference between something that is natural and unnatural? If it happens, we call it natural, unless we really don't understand it, in which case we arbitrarily call it unnatural.

I disagreed with this above. You can have either without the other, so they're different things. The brain is just a part, an essential one to a human, but not the only essential one, and certainly not essential to be life, since most life doesn't have one. It can be alive, or can be a dead brain, but it is not itself life. — noAxioms

I said the brain produces intelligence, not that "brains are life". You claimed brains don't produce intelligence, but I contend that they do.

We have no clear definition, and DNA seems a tool to perpetuate life, but I would never say it creates it. It seems that at no point is non-life transformed into life by DNA. — noAxioms

There might be such a point. When strands of DNA begin to fold onto themselves and create three dimensional structure, it is in the process of turning non-living matter into the beginnings of a living cell.

Why would a fully functional AI that can think and act on it's own behalf not be considered alive? — VagabondSpectre

My examples of AI did not have self-perpetuation as a goal. The ones that did were not AI, but those I consider life if they include a mechanism to evade predation and change. A good virus has this capability since many virus detectors work with a fixed list of known viruses and look for them. A virus that changes on the fly, unpredictably, is much harder to eradicate. But is the change any sort of improvement? I don't think so.

Yes, I think a fully functional AI is life, and counts as consciousness, but I have a lax definition of consciousness, so its no big feat. Without a definition, it is meaningless to posit if an AI has it.

Of what need do we have at all for a definition? Suppose we had a perfect rigid definition. What would benefit from it? What argument (besides "is this life?") would be laid to rest with such a definition at our disposal? It just seems to be an unimportant language issue to me.
— noAxioms

It's about trying to understand what makes life life. The hunt for a sensical definition is tied to our efforts to try and comprehend how and why life does what it does. If we had a better understanding of how carbon based life organizes itself, we might have a better idea of how non-carbon based life might also organize itself. — VagabondSpectre

I doubt much would be related. If religion was considered life, I don't think understanding biology would help understand how religion achieves the natural selection that makes for fit religions. Religion is closer to life than fire (which does not undergo natural selection), but I'm reluctant to submit it as actual life.

Those all seem to be the means to achieve the persistence. If the persistence can be had without data storage, I think it would still be life. Would help if I could come up with an example.
There are plenty of life forms too primitive to anticipate their environment, and they persist more by prolific reproduction than to actually influence behavior.
— noAxioms

Not all life successfully anticipates it's environment, but prolific reproduction as a means of ensuring long term survival does anticipate the environment. It anticipates harsh conditions, and uses numbers as a strategy to overcome them. — VagabondSpectre

Does the individual do that? Does the DNA anticipate anything? It is admittedly a function of conditions, and thus a reaction to them, but anticipation goes a little too far. Ditto with religion, which used to be evolved for more stable environments, but has seen more instability lately, and thus has selected for more adaptable members, just like humans might be a train wreck example of individual fitness, but our advantage is that adaptability. Pandas are sort of the opposite: perfected for a niche at the cost of almost any adaptability. Surprised they're still around given the recent hits to their environment. Score a few points for cuteness I think.

Natural vs unnatural (inevitable vs avoidable) is a red herring loaded with baggage. How can you tell the difference between something that is natural and unnatural? If it happens, we call it natural, unless we really don't understand it, in which case we arbitrarily call it unnatural. — VagabondSpectre

There you go destroying my definition. Indeed, it might clarify the definition of life, only by use of a totally baggage-laden word like unnatural. Certainly the word is not something for which there is an definitive test, but I have an attempt: Earth biological life is unnatural since we have found nothing like it thus far anywhere else. Doubtless it is out there, and there's a better than even chance that it came elsewhere than originated on Earth, but it still had to originate somewhere and that seems to be a seriously rare event. Religions on the other hand do not have common ancestry (that I know of) and are likely to have started independently in many places. I'm pretty sure that if it were all wiped out and populations were kept isolated, new religions would spring up in each of the population groups. So that makes it natural. I'm unaware of such experiments being performed, so it is conjecture.

There might be such a point. When strands of DNA begin to fold onto themselves and create three dimensional structure, it is in the process of turning non-living matter into the beginnings of a living cell. — VagabondSpectre

It seems it is already living at that point, giving rise as to when matter transforms from a floating nutrient to actually part of the living thing. Without that distinction, I don't think we can answer this. With that distinction, we perhaps have a better clue as to what we want to define as life. What percentage of my body weight is actually living material, and how much of it is just stored liquid, food, and other material just being carried around, but not really part of me? I bet there's no clear answer to that.

My examples of AI did not have self-perpetuation as a goal. The ones that did were not AI, but those I consider life if they include a mechanism to evade predation and change. A good virus has this capability since many virus detectors work with a fixed list of known viruses and look for them. A virus that changes on the fly, unpredictably, is much harder to eradicate. But is the change any sort of improvement? I don't think so. — noAxioms

Not all life has reproduction or self-perpetuation as a goal. Humans can be anti-natalist and also suicidal. Pretty much all standard life we observe does seem organized toward these ends, but that's only because forms of life which do not tend to die out.

All forms of life I can think of somehow record data and use it in their decision making processes, but they do not always make decisions conducive to survival. The virus that changes remains is harder to defeat (that's the improvement; survivability), the inferior viruses which didn't change have long since been dealt with by their host's immune system.

Yes, I think a fully functional AI is life, and counts as consciousness, but I have a lax definition of consciousness, so its no big feat. Without a definition, it is meaningless to posit if an AI has it. — noAxioms

An amoeba is alive but probably not "conscious". I suppose if we're to consider "consciousness" a form of or a part of life, it must be a different kind than simple forms of life such as bacteria or an unnecessary/optional feature of it. I'm inclined to say that human consciousness (and the goings on of the brain) is indeed a distinct form of life, much like a hypothetical AI.

In the hierarchy of biological life, DNA based life takes solid form at the cellular level, but in multi-cellular forms of life where individual cells are combined in complex systems (such as connected neurons in the human brain), the physical mechanism for sentience and a higher order of life is made possible. The question is: what does human consciousness, an AI, and an amoeba have in common? They all act per mechanisms which incorporate recorded data; it's the operant force behind their innovation and decision making.

I realize that a train track lever also records data (a single bit) and is clearly not life. However, a large and complex enough system of interconnected levers which record large amounts of data in hierarchical structures could in theory produce artificial intelligence, whether by design or emergent through properties inherent in the system. Where in between a single lever and an AI is the complexity or organizational threshold for "life"? I find it an interesting question.

Those all seem to be the means to achieve the persistence. If the persistence can be had without data storage, I think it would still be life. Would help if I could come up with an example. — noAxioms

I'm also looking for such an example, which is what has led me to attempt to defend my general thrust.

Pandas are sort of the opposite: perfected for a niche at the cost of almost any adaptability. Surprised they're still around given the recent hits to their environment. Score a few points for cuteness I think. — noAxioms

The DNA of the Panda anticipates a bamboo rich environment. The DNA itself cannot perceive changes to the pandas habitat immediately, but through natural selection alone it can overtime, and may come to anticipate a less bamboo rich environment.

It seems it is already living at that point, giving rise as to when matter transforms from a floating nutrient to actually part of the living thing. Without that distinction, I don't think we can answer this. With that distinction, we perhaps have a better clue as to what we want to define as life. What percentage of my body weight is actually living material, and how much of it is just stored liquid, food, and other material just being carried around, but not really part of me? I bet there's no clear answer to that. — noAxioms

I think I'm most comfortable with defining "life" as a kind of organism, a whole. A n outstretched strand of DNA surely is not alive; it's reduced to it's naked bits, but in a certain environment a greater structure emerges, and with astounding complexity behaves in the kind of ways which we intuitively like to call "unnatural".

Here's the process that I'm describing:



This might be a good candidate to help us approximate that "organizational or complexity threshold" I talked about earlier as it applies to single cellular life.

Decoding the physics and chemistry of human intelligence is well behind other fields of biology, but what about artificial intelligence? Granted we don't have a true one yet, machine learning is already extraordinarily powerful. Would an "artificial intelligence" qualify as a form of life? I would say so, which to me means we need programmers to go with our biologists in search of the definition of life. We aren't in dire need of a rigid or flawless definition, as you say (if there is one), but it's intriguing to see how close we can reasonably come. — VagabondSpectre

What benefit accrues in extending the definition of 'life' to encompass artificial intelligence?

I don't see why we could not extend intelligence, consciousness or even personhood and the subsequent legal protections, to non-living things.

Meta might ask "But is a conscious computer really alive"; but my point it that the answer to this question is found not by locating an essence, but by deciding how we want to use the words associated with 'life'.

My original point was to refute the claim that "The notion of essence is philosophically defunct." If the goal of your comment is to argue against my point, then I think you are committing the straw man fallacy, because I agree with everything you say, and it does not refute my point.

I agree that if the measurement is fuzzy, then the conclusion about the object's tallness is consequently fuzzy, but this does not change the claim that "tallness" has a clear essence. This is also proven by what you claimed:

I think everybody would agree that somebody whose estimated height is greater than two metres is tall, and that somebody whose estimated height is less than 1.5 metres is not tall. — andrewk

In this case, the data is clear (away from the fuzzy boundaries) and the conclusion is clear. This proves that the essence of 'tallness' is also clear, because if it wasn't, then the conclusion would not be clear, despite having clear data.

With a fuzzy boundary of category C we can identify necessary conditions for C ( in the above example: measured height > 1.5 metres) and we can identify sufficient conditions for C ( in the above example: measured height > 2.0 metres) , but we cannot identify necessary and sufficient conditions for C, which is what an essence is understood to be.

we cannot identify necessary and sufficient conditions for C, which is what an essence is understood to be. — andrewk

not only cannot, but also need not,and indeed should not. Need not because we get by without them; and should not because doing so leads on to hold to certainty that is just not there.

but we cannot identify necessary and sufficient conditions for C, which is what an essence is understood to be. — andrewk

Cool. I did not know that this was a way to determine the essence of things.

we cannot identify necessary and sufficient conditions for C — andrewk

Why not? If the premise "object > 1.5 m" is certain, then we can conclude with certainty that the object is taller than 1.5 m. Thus the condition is both sufficient and necessary for the conclusion. How much taller? By the same amount claimed in the premise. What if we are not certain about the premise? Then the conclusion is not certain, but this has nothing to do with the essence.

2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples. We are certain of this principle. What if we are not certain that we have 2 apples + 2 apples? Then we are not certain that we have 4 apples. But this does not make the principle uncertain.

Thus the condition is both sufficient and necessary for the conclusion. — Samuel Lacrampe

It is not sufficient. I don't know anybody that would describe a 1.51m human as 'tall'.

I think it would help to read up on the meaning of 'necessary and sufficient'. The wiki article is not bad.

What benefit accrues in extending the definition of 'life' to encompass artificial intelligence?

I don't see why we could not extend intelligence, consciousness or even personhood and the subsequent legal protections, to non-living things.

Meta might ask "But is a conscious computer really alive"; but my point it that the answer to this question is found not by locating an essence, but by deciding how we want to use the words associated with 'life'. — Banno

What benefit accrues? The validity of my own particular definition of course! *Badumptss*

Arbitrarily extending word use will accrue no benefit, but I'm more interested in exploring the similarities between things like DNA, connected neurons in the brain, and digital infrastructure. These (complex) systems play fundamental roles in producing what we already do (and would) refer to as life, and while we should not expect the real world to reflect human semantics at every turn ("What's the 'essence' of life?" is an extension of whatever we arbitrarily define life to be) we do have good reason to suspect certain similarities exist between them.

For now, the best description I can muster is that life is an organism composed of hierarchies and networks of individual interacting parts which together comprise a system capable of growing in organizational complexity and anticipatory strength. They're typified by such extreme complexity that classic reductionist approaches to understanding them yield slow and painful results owing to our inability to navigate and track the extreme magnitude of their diverse and diversely interacting parts.

The OP's question "what's the difference between a living cow and dead cow" isn't the most thought provoking, but it does reference something real. The easy answer is that it's brain is no longer able to regulate it's body (or vice versa) or produce it's conscious mind. The possibly insightful answer per the above would be: a cessation of complex and organized interactions between the interconnected neurons in it's brain which no longer produces a sophisticated and emergent "consciousness". A dead cell is a cell whose DNA and various other parts cease to perform the complex and organized set of interactions which once produced it's sophisticated and emergent behavior.

It's not saying a whole lot but it's a start. Exploring "anticipatory power" as a feature of various examples of life while taking into account the complex systems approach to describing them leads to the insight that recorded data plays a fundamental role in the mechanisms which produce that anticipatory power.

I would even go so far as to say that logically, in a world of changing states dependent on causation, predictive power can only come from data reflecting previous and present states which can then be used to extrapolate future states. It might not amount to much, but it seems everything we are want to label "life" does employ recorded data in some form as a necessary part of it's ability to self-organize, anticipate, and successfully navigate it's environment.

we cannot identify necessary and sufficient conditions for C, which is what an essence is understood to be.
— andrewk

not only cannot, but also need not,and indeed should not. Need not because we get by without them; and should not because doing so leads on to hold to certainty that is just not there. — Banno

I totally agree with this. Whatever we're doing attempting to define life here, a hard definition cannot come of it.

I'm a bit proponent of things like this (life, consciousness, other things) not being true or false, but rather a sliding scale. Fire is life, but not much. Religion has more life, and grass even more. A mousetrap is conscious, but nearly as far to the low end of the scale as you can get. Something can be more conscious than a human.
A dualist often interprets that word as a Boolean property: Of having/requiring that dual relationship or not. There is no scale to that unless there is a lesser mind-stuff given to lesser things, sort of like the Aiua in Orson Scott Card's "Children of the mind" (4th book in Ender series).

Not all life has reproduction or self-perpetuation as a goal. Humans can be anti-natalist and also suicidal. Pretty much all standard life we observe does seem organized toward these ends, but that's only because forms of life which do not tend to die out. — VagabondSpectre

A creature that is anti-natal or commits suicide for no gain is not fit and is eliminated from the gene pool. Give me an example where it is the fit thing (with no gain to the 'tribe').

Yes, I think a fully functional AI is life, and counts as consciousness, but I have a lax definition of consciousness, so its no big feat. Without a definition, it is meaningless to posit if an AI has it.
— noAxioms
An amoeba is alive but probably not "conscious". I suppose if we're to consider "consciousness" a form of or a part of life, it must be a different kind than simple forms of life such as bacteria or an unnecessary/optional feature of it. I'm inclined to say that human consciousness (and the goings on of the brain) is indeed a distinct form of life, much like a hypothetical AI. — VagabondSpectre

It is distinct from life. Something can be conscious but not be life (like an AI that doesn't perpetuate), or be life but not conscious (grass, bacteria). Mind you, I have that lax definition of consciousness, and consider all those things to be conscious, just not as much.

In the hierarchy of biological life,

Bad way to start a paragraph trying to work out what else might be life besides Earth biology.

.. in complex systems (such as connected neurons in the human brain), the physical mechanism for sentience and a higher order of life is made possible.

Life is not necessary for said complexity. Consciousness is not a factor at all. Data recording is closer to the mark, but rocks record data, and we've decided rocks are not life (or are at least far less life).

I realize that a train track lever also records data (a single bit) and is clearly not life. However, a large and complex enough system of interconnected levers which record large amounts of data in hierarchical structures could in theory produce artificial intelligence, whether by design or emergent through properties inherent in the system. Where in between a single lever and an AI is the complexity or organizational threshold for "life"? I find it an interesting question.

I think the complexity is perhaps relevant to consciousness, but not to life. It matters more how the data is used, and not so much how complex the mechanism is. Yes, Scientific American built a Turing machine from nothing but track levers thrown by passing trains.

The DNA of the Panda anticipates a bamboo rich environment. The DNA itself cannot perceive changes to the pandas habitat immediately, but through natural selection alone it can overtime, and may come to anticipate a less bamboo rich environment. — VagabondSpectre

A Panda's DNA also anticipates almost zero long term change in the habitat, which is why they're so endangered during the current mass extinction event. Dinosaurs were also sufficiently perfected that they were too slow to respond to a similar event (the asteroid being one of them).

I think I'm most comfortable with defining "life" as a kind of organism, a whole. — VagabondSpectre

Sounds biological, exempting things that clearly are not 'organisms'.

What benefit accrues in extending the definition of 'life' to encompass artificial intelligence?

I don't see why we could not extend intelligence, consciousness or even personhood and the subsequent legal protections, to non-living things. — Banno

If we found intelligent life out there, I doubt it would be sufficiently human to allow application of the human legal system. Exploring some cases demonstrates your prior post about the dangers of defining essence, or especially the ethical treatment owed to anything deemed sufficiently sentient life.

For instance, suppose I was to make a small modification to a human that lets one create with minimum effort a disposable child, something that just splits off with all my education and such, but looks different and lives only a few days. It kills some rival I don't like, and perhaps dies shortly after, perhaps in jail. I am innocent and minus one rival. The legal system would need to adjust.

I am amoeba man, who splits into identical halves. I get a job (and buy a house), then split. Which keeps the job or house? Does the original identity even exist anymore? There can be no legal concept of property ownership to such a being.

A computer virus goes sentient and wants to work with/for us, for pay. We give it legal status, it does tasks and earns wages that pay for consumed resources. It becomes unethical to eradicate instances of it (why, when it can effortlessly reproduce?), but one of them commits a petty crime. Do you incarcerate it? What does that word even mean to an entity living in the cloud? Terminating it seem harsh for the minor offense.

The article was very interesting.

I don't know anybody that would describe a 1.51m human as 'tall'. — andrewk

You seem to forget that part of the essence of tallness is to be 'relative to X'. Be specific in the object and in X, and you will obtain a clear conclusion. If you ask "Is a 1.51 m human tall?", a reasonable person will ask "Tall relative to what? To a cat, yes; to a giraffe, no." Then you reply "Tall relative to the average human height, which is 1.5 m". Then the person says "Yes, because if the average human height is exactly 1.5 m, the a 1.51 m human is taller (more tall) than the average human height. 0.01 m taller, to be precise." Once again, the fuzziness lies not in the essence, but elsewhere.

That doesn't help, unless you are prepared to say that Albert, who was most recently measured as 1770.1mm tall is 'tall relative to' Gunther, who was most recently measured as 1770.0mm tall, which would be inconsistent with how the word is used.

If we don't adopt that departure from normal language use, we have to accept that there are no necessary and sufficient conditions for being 'tall relative to Gunther'. We would all agree that Laxmi, who was most recently measured as 1450mm tall, is not tall relative to Gunther, and that Song Mi, who was most recently measured as 2137mm tall, is tall relative to Gunther, but for people who were last measured with heights in the range of say 1720mm to 1820mm there is a fuzzy boundary, where no agreement could be reached as to whether the person is tall relative to Gunther.

That doesn't help, unless you are prepared to say that Albert, who was most recently measured as 1770.1mm tall is 'tall relative to' Gunther, who was most recently measured as 1770.0mm tall, which would be inconsistent with how the word is used. — andrewk

Actually I am prepared to say that. Let's put it this way. Logically, there are only three answers when comparing the height of X and Y:
A. X is taller than Y
B. X is shorter than Y
C. X is exactly equal to Y in height.

If X = 1770.1 mm tall and Y = 1770.0 mm tall, then the right answer is A, not B or C. Logic beats popular opinion.

Sounds like a definition of 'taller', which is a relation, and not how the word 'tall' is typically used. There is no standard X implied by the typical usage of the word. Ditto with life.

A creature that is anti-natal or commits suicide for no gain is not fit and is eliminated from the gene pool. Give me an example where it is the fit thing (with no gain to the 'tribe'). — noAxioms

I'm just pointing out that the intention to procreate or go on living is not present in all examples of life. These examples of life die, but they continue to crop up.

It is distinct from life. Something can be conscious but not be life (like an AI that doesn't perpetuate), or be life but not conscious (grass, bacteria). Mind you, I have that lax definition of consciousness, and consider all those things to be conscious, just not as much. — noAxioms

By "perpetuate" do you mean "reproduce/procreate"?

I don't view procreation as a necessary feature of all "life", although it is widely present because without it life tends to die. By "perpetuate" I originally meant that the ongoing interactions of complex internal structures are themselves what give rise to the on-going process we're referring to as "life". Procreation and replication is only one of many complex behaviors that "life" and it's parts seem to perform.

Whether or not consciousness is a form of life is secondary. The way that that DNA and human neurology both facilitate complex and enduring animated patterns of interacting matter seem eminently comparable.

Bad way to start a paragraph trying to work out what else might be life besides Earth biology. — noAxioms

I was intentionally referring to life on earth in this case. That said I'm quite willing to throw any hypothetical life form onto my wagon. Even conscious AI's who don't reproduce.

Life is not necessary for said complexity. Consciousness is not a factor at all. Data recording is closer to the mark, but rocks record data, and we've decided rocks are not life (or are at least far less life). — noAxioms

Rocks are hardly sensitive instruments, let's be honest. And they don't often find themselves organized in a structure where data can be readily recorded and then retrieved using them as a base unit. That said, I can imagine life existing in some form within a vast cloud of rocks floating in space which emerges from repeating patterns of rock collisions and their resulting gravitational fields. Start with a basic pattern that replicates, wait for emergent complexity, and when a complex enough system of rocks begins to anticipate it's environment, I'll call it life.

I think the complexity is perhaps relevant to consciousness, but not to life. It matters more how the data is used, and not so much how complex the mechanism is. Yes, Scientific American built a Turing machine from nothing but track levers thrown by passing trains. — noAxioms

Complexity is most certainly relevant to life. Can you fathom any form of life, real or hypothetical, whose internal workings could not be described as "complex"?

A Panda's DNA also anticipates almost zero long term change in the habitat, which is why they're so endangered during the current mass extinction event. Dinosaurs were also sufficiently perfected that they were too slow to respond to a similar event (the asteroid being one of them). — noAxioms

And yet a small percentage of Pandas may survive, and they may be forced to start living on more diverse diets. The genetic data resulting from the long history of panda ancestors eating other things will surely benefit them as they transition into alternative diets over individual lifetimes and over generations.

Sounds biological, exempting things that clearly are not 'organisms'. — noAxioms

I'm using the term organism in a particular sense; an organ (read: organized). A defined system of interacting and inter-dependent parts that cohere to form a whole (a defined boundary, not necessarily a full internal model)

I'm just pointing out that the intention to procreate or go on living is not present in all examples of life. These examples of life die, but they continue to crop up. — VagabondSpectre

The elimination of unfit members is natural selection in action. The species itself would die out if suicide was a general trait. My definition of life included persistence, so I have to disagree. Humanity as a whole is something that tends to persist. Humanity is an example of life. I also don't think there is intention involved, but you're free to apply that word to what a tulip does.

By "perpetuate" do you mean "reproduce/procreate"? — VagabondSpectre

No. If it can perpetuate without procreation (just be sufficiently immortal), it can be life. Perhaps creation of competitors is not in its best interest. Procreation is just one way to achieve this, and it is a far more efficient way to speed evolution, so that method tends to get selected over the more evolution-resistant method of immortality. It is harder (but certainly not impossible) to make improvements to an individual than to a species.
Yes, life tends to die. Something that is immortal needs a mechanism to ensure survival from major accidents, which are inevitable. There can be no single points of failure.

Rocks are hardly sensitive instruments, let's be honest. And they don't often find themselves organized in a structure where data can be readily recorded and then retrieved using them as a base unit. — VagabondSpectre

They do record data readily. How else do we know the long term history of the planet? Ask the rocks. The information is stored nowhere else it seems. Their lack of USB port to download the information just means you need to learn their language if you want them to talk to you.

Complexity is most certainly relevant to life. Can you fathom any form of life, real or hypothetical, whose internal workings could not be described as "complex"? — VagabondSpectre

We have not defined life. Banno says fire meets the requirement, and since 'unnatural' was found to not belong in my definition, I think fire is life, just a very trivial form. So there's the example of one not complex, and that lack of complexity is why most don't consider it life. If you don't agree, I think the claim of a requirement for a certain level of complexity needs to be defended.
Fire doesn't seem to partake in natural selection, but nobody has listed that as a requirement. "Sufficient complexity to support natural selection"? That would add the need for data, which your definition had, and mine did not, and which fire seems not to have.
I don't like the word 'intent'. I think bacteria intends to persist no more than does fire.

And yet a small percentage of Pandas may survive, and they may be forced to start living on more diverse diets. The genetic data resulting from the long history of panda ancestors eating other things will surely benefit them as they transition into alternative diets over individual lifetimes and over generations. — VagabondSpectre

The panda is sufficiently perfected for its niche that adaptability is all but gone. It cannot transition faster than its environment is changing, and will likely only stick around in captivity as do so many other sufficiently cute creatures. Possibly not, since they don't seem to thrive well in captivity. A bird of paradise has the same problem.

I'm using the term organism in a particular sense; an organ (read: organized). A defined system of interacting and inter-dependent parts that cohere to form a whole (a defined boundary, not necessarily a full internal model) — VagabondSpectre

OK. Is a computer virus an organism? Are there really 'parts' to it? I guess there are, just like there are parts to DNA that serve different function.
The only difference between a computer virus and a biological one is that the former is known to be an intelligently designed thing. That suggests that biological primitives might be as well. Biology seems to have a better than even chance of having fallen here from the cosmos rather than having originated here. If the former, perhaps it was engineered by (as opposed to evolved from) some non-biological predecessor, but then that just defers the origin question further back, asking how those predecessors came to be. Somewhere, something had to happen just by chance, given non-deistic assumptions. Even the ID community has backed off on the life thing. The teleological argument now puts the tunings of our universe at a far lower probability than the odds of life appearing naturally.