Hello, I'm new around here. I recently had a resurgent interest in tamas having remembered how much fun they were twelve years ago when the first ones were around, and while wondering around I came across this topic and it caught my attention. I was wondering if anyone has read or even heard of Philip K. d***'s novel,Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
I know tamas aren't the most sophisticated form of artificial life around, but many themes explored in d***'s work are easily applied to the question at hand.
I personally think that while one may be quick to give either a yes or no for an answer, the question transcends the one dimensional nature of such answers. It brings into question one's own definition of life. Life can be defined by a multiplicity of factors. which in turn spark a multitude of debates on some of the most controversial issues today. Take a simple flu virus. It has no beating heart or working brain as people here claim life must have, yet many scientists consider it a form of life, it does however lack many of the most common characteristics associated with life, which differentiate it from bacteria per say. From a structural and functional perspective these can be qualities which may serve to differentiate life; however, turning around to a different field, the idea of consciousness, one is faced with an entire new dimension of ways in which to qualify life. Is a person in a vegetative state alive? They need food, they need to be looked after, they need lots of the things that life would need according to a structural qualitative definition, yet to many they are considered to be not alive anymore. If such is to be true, does the degree of complexity of one's consciousness, or even the existence of one be enough to give something the quality of being alive? If one goes by that, one may even come to the point of naming organisms such as other animals as not having a soul which is done by many religions, therefore placing them, to the eyes of many, in a state where they are not really alive to their standards.
Our comprehension of life is limited by what we know about our own, or what we consider to be life. Maybe in a different context to different beings we wouldn't be considered to be really alive.
Life is, just like it is not permanent, not a definite thing, and blowing such a question and answering with a blunt yes or no is not really granting the question enough thought. Think about it for a while. Look at what life is to you, what you consider to give you life and turn around and see other things, are they alive? If you think so and they are in any way simpler, even if only to your eyes, continue gradually shifting your perspective of life, and when you have thought enough about it, answer the question to the best of your abilities. In the end people will come to different conclusions and that doesn't mean anyone is wrong but what matters is that everyone is able to see that life is dynamic and not determined by a static set of perquisites, and by such means a definition of life is merely for one's own thought, and never absolute.
Thought is a beautiful thing and I couldn't give up the chance to compel others to give everything a bit more thought.
In case anyone didn't get it, I think that it is not up to the individual to tell if something is alive or not, but it is something one must think about regardless for without thought an answer is not one at all.
Those are my 99 cents
