Please pick one of these and talk about it.

Torrasque

New member
Aug 6, 2010
3,441
0
0
During the week, I am completely without internet. I am working with my dad building houses out on an indian reserve, and because one of the secretaries and I disagree, I am without internet for the 5 days I am out there, working on the reserve. For someone like myself, this is like being disconnected from the khala, lifestream, or whatever greater flow of knowledge you can think of. It's like not being able to make bishops or rooks in chess (that's the lowest tier comparison I can think of atm).

Anyways, during my time at home where I have the internet and such to soak myself in, I decided to watch Ghost in the Shell (an anime that I physically own). I decided to watch GitS because I watched Tekkonkinkreet and Tekkonkinkreet influenced me in a way that only Ghost in the Shell ever has. Anyways, I was thinking (a thing that you should be doing while watching GitS) as I was watching GitS "hey, it would be cool if I had a philosophy class that was about anime or the questions brought up in anime" and since GitS is a really good anime that brings up really good questions, I figured I'd ask you some of the questions brought up.

Think of yourselves as pseudo-students in my pseudo class of awesomeness:

*A cyborg and a man are arguing. The cyborg argues that it is a life form because it has all of the technical qualities that a human possesses, and a human classifies itself as a life form (everything in this description is not arguable, it is fact)*

Ridiculous! You're merely a self-preserving program!

By that argument, I submit the DNA you carry is nothing more than a self-preserving program itself. Life is like a node which is born within the flow of information. As a species of life that carries DNA as its memory system, man gains his individuality from the memories he carries. While memories may as well be the same as fantasy, it is by these memories that mankind exists.

*The human wants to distinguish itself from the cyborg and gives evidence to support his claim, but that evidence also supports the claim that the cyborg has equivalent life-status as a human*

Nonsense! No matter what you say, you've no proof that you're a life-form!

It is impossible to prove such a thing. Especially since modern science cannot define what life is.

Both of these are from the Ghost in the Shell movie, the original movie.
So please pick one and argue the position of either human or non-human. You can argue both positions or neither if you want, but I think that would be very difficult. You also might want to acquaint yourself with the arguments apparent in my examples. Unfortunately, I don't have the patience to give you links to the relevant video samples, so you should just watch Ghost in the Shell yourself (or at least the last bit, lol)

I apologize if I am unresponsive to this thread since I will be internetless for the next week since I have work to be done ;-;
 

DefunctTheory

Not So Defunct Now
Mar 30, 2010
6,438
0
0
Technically, the cyborg in your scenario is not a life form.

Wikipedia said:
Biology

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following characteristics or traits:[29][31][32]

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells ? the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
The cyborg fails to pass Organization (It is not made up of cells), Growth (it does not actually grow, unless components are added that the body itself does not process), Adaptation (The Cyborg cannot change its body over time. One could argue that a series of upgrades qualifies, but again, this is not adaptation in a biological sense), and reproduction.

Of course, the definition of life has become a bit tricky as of late. But usually exceptions are made when something fails one requirement, not four.

Also, its debatable as to whether 'cyborgs' in 'Ghost in a Shell' are even cyborgs at all. Cyborg implies that there are some organic parts, while if I remember correctly, Ghost in a Shell's cybrorgs are entirely mechanical, even the brain.
 

BQE

Posh Villainess
Jun 17, 2013
334
0
0
Well, honestly this leads into more classical philosophical discussion. The minds of Heidegger, Sartre, and the bevy of other existentialists I read into have spoken volumes on subjects of this sort. To me it's just a game of semantics and since these sort of questions dwell within a fantasy scifi world whose workings aren't real it's difficult to countenance this arguement with reality. At what point in this programming is independent thought gained? Aren't all actions and robotic personalities just byproducts of programming? I don't like this arguement because I honestly find the technological aspects essential for proper dialogue.

I'm also tired and may not be thinking straight.
 

Esotera

New member
May 5, 2011
3,400
0
0
The cyborg wouldn't be alive in the biological sense, but if it can carry out a conversation like that it'd almost certainly class as an intelligent, sentient being. It's basically the same thing as a human, but through a different medium.

Also if you like the idea that each human life is just a node for the transmission of genetic information, you should totally read the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. It's an awesome book and covers exactly that.
 

Realitycrash

New member
Dec 12, 2010
2,779
0
0
AccursedTheory said:
Technically, the cyborg in your scenario is not a life form.

Wikipedia said:
Biology

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following characteristics or traits:[29][31][32]

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells ? the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
The cyborg fails to pass Organization (It is not made up of cells), Growth (it does not actually grow, unless components are added that the body itself does not process), Adaptation (The Cyborg cannot change its body over time. One could argue that a series of upgrades qualifies, but again, this is not adaptation in a biological sense), and reproduction.

Of course, the definition of life has become a bit tricky as of late. But usually exceptions are made when something fails one requirement, not four.

Also, its debatable as to whether 'cyborgs' in 'Ghost in a Shell' are even cyborgs at all. Cyborg implies that there are some organic parts, while if I remember correctly, Ghost in a Shell's cybrorgs are entirely mechanical, even the brain.
The question of biology isn't the relevant one here. The question is, as you have alluded to, is whether or not being sentient is enough to carry all the ethical implications of being 'human'. And if the cyborg isn't sentient because it is just a program, then what does that say about Free Will for humans?

I say that if the cyborg can function in the same fashion humans can, and display desires and emotions, then we have no reason not to consider it as human on any ethically relevant position.
 

DefunctTheory

Not So Defunct Now
Mar 30, 2010
6,438
0
0
Realitycrash said:
AccursedTheory said:
Technically, the cyborg in your scenario is not a life form.

Wikipedia said:
Biology

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following characteristics or traits:[29][31][32]

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells ? the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
The cyborg fails to pass Organization (It is not made up of cells), Growth (it does not actually grow, unless components are added that the body itself does not process), Adaptation (The Cyborg cannot change its body over time. One could argue that a series of upgrades qualifies, but again, this is not adaptation in a biological sense), and reproduction.

Of course, the definition of life has become a bit tricky as of late. But usually exceptions are made when something fails one requirement, not four.

Also, its debatable as to whether 'cyborgs' in 'Ghost in a Shell' are even cyborgs at all. Cyborg implies that there are some organic parts, while if I remember correctly, Ghost in a Shell's cybrorgs are entirely mechanical, even the brain.
The question of biology isn't the relevant one here. The question is, as you have alluded to, is whether or not being sentient is enough to carry all the ethical implications of being 'human'. And if the cyborg isn't sentient because it is just a program, then what does that say about Free Will for humans?

I say that if the cyborg can function in the same fashion humans can, and display desires and emotions, then we have no reason not to consider it as human on any ethically relevant position.
Then the question isn't 'Is it a life form,' its 'Is it a person?'

I'd agree that the Cyborg is a 'person,' or sentient being if you prefer.
 

Realitycrash

New member
Dec 12, 2010
2,779
0
0
AccursedTheory said:
Realitycrash said:
AccursedTheory said:
Technically, the cyborg in your scenario is not a life form.

Wikipedia said:
Biology

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following characteristics or traits:[29][31][32]

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells ? the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
The cyborg fails to pass Organization (It is not made up of cells), Growth (it does not actually grow, unless components are added that the body itself does not process), Adaptation (The Cyborg cannot change its body over time. One could argue that a series of upgrades qualifies, but again, this is not adaptation in a biological sense), and reproduction.

Of course, the definition of life has become a bit tricky as of late. But usually exceptions are made when something fails one requirement, not four.

Also, its debatable as to whether 'cyborgs' in 'Ghost in a Shell' are even cyborgs at all. Cyborg implies that there are some organic parts, while if I remember correctly, Ghost in a Shell's cybrorgs are entirely mechanical, even the brain.
The question of biology isn't the relevant one here. The question is, as you have alluded to, is whether or not being sentient is enough to carry all the ethical implications of being 'human'. And if the cyborg isn't sentient because it is just a program, then what does that say about Free Will for humans?

I say that if the cyborg can function in the same fashion humans can, and display desires and emotions, then we have no reason not to consider it as human on any ethically relevant position.
Then the question isn't 'Is it a life form,' its 'Is it a person?'

I'd agree that the Cyborg is a 'person,' or sentient being if you prefer.
But the current description of life is flawed, simply because IRL, we don't have another example of a life-form. If we discover sentient aliens made out of hydrogen-gas, why shouldn't that be considered a life? Same with a machine. Just because our current definition talks about biology doesn't mean that said definition should be changed if we encounter something with human-like sentience which does not have the same physical properties as we do.
 

DefunctTheory

Not So Defunct Now
Mar 30, 2010
6,438
0
0
Realitycrash said:
AccursedTheory said:
Realitycrash said:
AccursedTheory said:
Technically, the cyborg in your scenario is not a life form.

Wikipedia said:
Biology

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following characteristics or traits:[29][31][32]

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells ? the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
The cyborg fails to pass Organization (It is not made up of cells), Growth (it does not actually grow, unless components are added that the body itself does not process), Adaptation (The Cyborg cannot change its body over time. One could argue that a series of upgrades qualifies, but again, this is not adaptation in a biological sense), and reproduction.

Of course, the definition of life has become a bit tricky as of late. But usually exceptions are made when something fails one requirement, not four.

Also, its debatable as to whether 'cyborgs' in 'Ghost in a Shell' are even cyborgs at all. Cyborg implies that there are some organic parts, while if I remember correctly, Ghost in a Shell's cybrorgs are entirely mechanical, even the brain.
The question of biology isn't the relevant one here. The question is, as you have alluded to, is whether or not being sentient is enough to carry all the ethical implications of being 'human'. And if the cyborg isn't sentient because it is just a program, then what does that say about Free Will for humans?

I say that if the cyborg can function in the same fashion humans can, and display desires and emotions, then we have no reason not to consider it as human on any ethically relevant position.
Then the question isn't 'Is it a life form,' its 'Is it a person?'

I'd agree that the Cyborg is a 'person,' or sentient being if you prefer.
But the current description of life is flawed, simply because IRL, we don't have another example of a life-form. If we discover sentient aliens made out of hydrogen-gas, why shouldn't that be considered a life? Same with a machine. Just because our current definition talks about biology doesn't mean that said definition should be changed if we encounter something with human-like sentience which does not have the same physical properties as we do.
So we should proactively change the definition of life to include theoretical (And clearly impossible) aliens?

Life, in science, is a biological construct. If it doesn't conform to biology, then its not alive. As of now, there's only one exception to the 'life' definition that I know of (Viruses). And for all the Star Trek theory craft of alien life, as far as I know, science hasn't been able to come up with many models for an organism that actually work. The few they have come up with that may be possible are so freakish and bizarre that classifying them as 'life' would be like calling steel wool food because it's made from atoms, just like apples. Worse, many (Like molten silicon life), can only exist in things that are two steps away from the surface of the sun - Even if they could work, there's almost no conceivable way that anything like that could evolve from anything.

In short, just because its not alive doesn't mean it can't be sentient. And I have no problem with such potential creatures. But if their so ridiculously different, why do we have to label them as we do ourselves?
 

Realitycrash

New member
Dec 12, 2010
2,779
0
0
AccursedTheory said:
Realitycrash said:
AccursedTheory said:
Realitycrash said:
AccursedTheory said:
Technically, the cyborg in your scenario is not a life form.

Wikipedia said:
Biology

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following characteristics or traits:[29][31][32]

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells ? the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
The cyborg fails to pass Organization (It is not made up of cells), Growth (it does not actually grow, unless components are added that the body itself does not process), Adaptation (The Cyborg cannot change its body over time. One could argue that a series of upgrades qualifies, but again, this is not adaptation in a biological sense), and reproduction.

Of course, the definition of life has become a bit tricky as of late. But usually exceptions are made when something fails one requirement, not four.

Also, its debatable as to whether 'cyborgs' in 'Ghost in a Shell' are even cyborgs at all. Cyborg implies that there are some organic parts, while if I remember correctly, Ghost in a Shell's cybrorgs are entirely mechanical, even the brain.
The question of biology isn't the relevant one here. The question is, as you have alluded to, is whether or not being sentient is enough to carry all the ethical implications of being 'human'. And if the cyborg isn't sentient because it is just a program, then what does that say about Free Will for humans?

I say that if the cyborg can function in the same fashion humans can, and display desires and emotions, then we have no reason not to consider it as human on any ethically relevant position.
Then the question isn't 'Is it a life form,' its 'Is it a person?'

I'd agree that the Cyborg is a 'person,' or sentient being if you prefer.
But the current description of life is flawed, simply because IRL, we don't have another example of a life-form. If we discover sentient aliens made out of hydrogen-gas, why shouldn't that be considered a life? Same with a machine. Just because our current definition talks about biology doesn't mean that said definition should be changed if we encounter something with human-like sentience which does not have the same physical properties as we do.
So we should proactively change the definition of life to include theoretical (And clearly impossible) aliens?

Life, in science, is a biological construct. If it doesn't conform to biology, then its not alive. As of now, there's only one exception to the 'life' definition that I know of (Viruses). And for all the Star Trek theory craft of alien life, as far as I know, science hasn't been able to come up with many models for an organism that actually work. The few they have come up with that may be possible are so freakish and bizarre that classifying them as 'life' would be like calling steel wool food because it's made from atoms, just like apples. Worse, many (Like molten silicon life), can only exist in things that are two steps away from the surface of the sun - Even if they could work, there's almost no conceivable way that anything like that could evolve from anything.

In short, just because its not alive doesn't mean it can't be sentient. And I have no problem with such potential creatures. But if their so ridiculously different, why do we have to label them as we do ourselves?
I'd hardly call them impossible. Just because we haven't encountered them doesn't mean they are theoretically impossible.
I'm saying that IF we encounter such things, then yes, the definition should be changed, because it no longer fits what we apply it to.
You don't think that "Sentient but not alive" is rather paradoxical?
 

DefunctTheory

Not So Defunct Now
Mar 30, 2010
6,438
0
0
Realitycrash said:
AccursedTheory said:
Realitycrash said:
AccursedTheory said:
Realitycrash said:
AccursedTheory said:
Technically, the cyborg in your scenario is not a life form.

Wikipedia said:
Biology

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following characteristics or traits:[29][31][32]

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells ? the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
The cyborg fails to pass Organization (It is not made up of cells), Growth (it does not actually grow, unless components are added that the body itself does not process), Adaptation (The Cyborg cannot change its body over time. One could argue that a series of upgrades qualifies, but again, this is not adaptation in a biological sense), and reproduction.

Of course, the definition of life has become a bit tricky as of late. But usually exceptions are made when something fails one requirement, not four.

Also, its debatable as to whether 'cyborgs' in 'Ghost in a Shell' are even cyborgs at all. Cyborg implies that there are some organic parts, while if I remember correctly, Ghost in a Shell's cybrorgs are entirely mechanical, even the brain.
The question of biology isn't the relevant one here. The question is, as you have alluded to, is whether or not being sentient is enough to carry all the ethical implications of being 'human'. And if the cyborg isn't sentient because it is just a program, then what does that say about Free Will for humans?

I say that if the cyborg can function in the same fashion humans can, and display desires and emotions, then we have no reason not to consider it as human on any ethically relevant position.
Then the question isn't 'Is it a life form,' its 'Is it a person?'

I'd agree that the Cyborg is a 'person,' or sentient being if you prefer.
But the current description of life is flawed, simply because IRL, we don't have another example of a life-form. If we discover sentient aliens made out of hydrogen-gas, why shouldn't that be considered a life? Same with a machine. Just because our current definition talks about biology doesn't mean that said definition should be changed if we encounter something with human-like sentience which does not have the same physical properties as we do.
So we should proactively change the definition of life to include theoretical (And clearly impossible) aliens?

Life, in science, is a biological construct. If it doesn't conform to biology, then its not alive. As of now, there's only one exception to the 'life' definition that I know of (Viruses). And for all the Star Trek theory craft of alien life, as far as I know, science hasn't been able to come up with many models for an organism that actually work. The few they have come up with that may be possible are so freakish and bizarre that classifying them as 'life' would be like calling steel wool food because it's made from atoms, just like apples. Worse, many (Like molten silicon life), can only exist in things that are two steps away from the surface of the sun - Even if they could work, there's almost no conceivable way that anything like that could evolve from anything.

In short, just because its not alive doesn't mean it can't be sentient. And I have no problem with such potential creatures. But if their so ridiculously different, why do we have to label them as we do ourselves?
I'd hardly call them impossible. Just because we haven't encountered them doesn't mean they are theoretically impossible.
I'm saying that IF we encounter such things, then yes, the definition should be changed, because it no longer fits what we apply it to.
You don't think that "Sentient but not alive" is rather paradoxical?
Considering that not everything alive is sentient, no, I don't.
 

Realitycrash

New member
Dec 12, 2010
2,779
0
0
AccursedTheory said:
Realitycrash said:
AccursedTheory said:
Realitycrash said:
AccursedTheory said:
Realitycrash said:
AccursedTheory said:
Technically, the cyborg in your scenario is not a life form.

Wikipedia said:
Biology

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following characteristics or traits:[29][31][32]

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells ? the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
The cyborg fails to pass Organization (It is not made up of cells), Growth (it does not actually grow, unless components are added that the body itself does not process), Adaptation (The Cyborg cannot change its body over time. One could argue that a series of upgrades qualifies, but again, this is not adaptation in a biological sense), and reproduction.

Of course, the definition of life has become a bit tricky as of late. But usually exceptions are made when something fails one requirement, not four.

Also, its debatable as to whether 'cyborgs' in 'Ghost in a Shell' are even cyborgs at all. Cyborg implies that there are some organic parts, while if I remember correctly, Ghost in a Shell's cybrorgs are entirely mechanical, even the brain.
The question of biology isn't the relevant one here. The question is, as you have alluded to, is whether or not being sentient is enough to carry all the ethical implications of being 'human'. And if the cyborg isn't sentient because it is just a program, then what does that say about Free Will for humans?

I say that if the cyborg can function in the same fashion humans can, and display desires and emotions, then we have no reason not to consider it as human on any ethically relevant position.
Then the question isn't 'Is it a life form,' its 'Is it a person?'

I'd agree that the Cyborg is a 'person,' or sentient being if you prefer.
But the current description of life is flawed, simply because IRL, we don't have another example of a life-form. If we discover sentient aliens made out of hydrogen-gas, why shouldn't that be considered a life? Same with a machine. Just because our current definition talks about biology doesn't mean that said definition should be changed if we encounter something with human-like sentience which does not have the same physical properties as we do.
So we should proactively change the definition of life to include theoretical (And clearly impossible) aliens?

Life, in science, is a biological construct. If it doesn't conform to biology, then its not alive. As of now, there's only one exception to the 'life' definition that I know of (Viruses). And for all the Star Trek theory craft of alien life, as far as I know, science hasn't been able to come up with many models for an organism that actually work. The few they have come up with that may be possible are so freakish and bizarre that classifying them as 'life' would be like calling steel wool food because it's made from atoms, just like apples. Worse, many (Like molten silicon life), can only exist in things that are two steps away from the surface of the sun - Even if they could work, there's almost no conceivable way that anything like that could evolve from anything.

In short, just because its not alive doesn't mean it can't be sentient. And I have no problem with such potential creatures. But if their so ridiculously different, why do we have to label them as we do ourselves?
I'd hardly call them impossible. Just because we haven't encountered them doesn't mean they are theoretically impossible.
I'm saying that IF we encounter such things, then yes, the definition should be changed, because it no longer fits what we apply it to.
You don't think that "Sentient but not alive" is rather paradoxical?
Considering that not everything alive is sentient, no, I don't.
I'd say it comes down to a matter of what connotations 'alive' carries. Is there any ethical connotations at all for you? Or is it just an arbitrary distinction which holds to sway over matters at hand at all?
For instance, should alive and 'dead' sentient be treated differently when it comes to matters of voting, or rights, etc? If they both have the same needs and the same desires.
 

DefunctTheory

Not So Defunct Now
Mar 30, 2010
6,438
0
0
Realitycrash said:
AccursedTheory said:
Realitycrash said:
AccursedTheory said:
Realitycrash said:
AccursedTheory said:
Realitycrash said:
AccursedTheory said:
Technically, the cyborg in your scenario is not a life form.

Wikipedia said:
Biology

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following characteristics or traits:[29][31][32]

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells ? the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
The cyborg fails to pass Organization (It is not made up of cells), Growth (it does not actually grow, unless components are added that the body itself does not process), Adaptation (The Cyborg cannot change its body over time. One could argue that a series of upgrades qualifies, but again, this is not adaptation in a biological sense), and reproduction.

Of course, the definition of life has become a bit tricky as of late. But usually exceptions are made when something fails one requirement, not four.

Also, its debatable as to whether 'cyborgs' in 'Ghost in a Shell' are even cyborgs at all. Cyborg implies that there are some organic parts, while if I remember correctly, Ghost in a Shell's cybrorgs are entirely mechanical, even the brain.
The question of biology isn't the relevant one here. The question is, as you have alluded to, is whether or not being sentient is enough to carry all the ethical implications of being 'human'. And if the cyborg isn't sentient because it is just a program, then what does that say about Free Will for humans?

I say that if the cyborg can function in the same fashion humans can, and display desires and emotions, then we have no reason not to consider it as human on any ethically relevant position.
Then the question isn't 'Is it a life form,' its 'Is it a person?'

I'd agree that the Cyborg is a 'person,' or sentient being if you prefer.
But the current description of life is flawed, simply because IRL, we don't have another example of a life-form. If we discover sentient aliens made out of hydrogen-gas, why shouldn't that be considered a life? Same with a machine. Just because our current definition talks about biology doesn't mean that said definition should be changed if we encounter something with human-like sentience which does not have the same physical properties as we do.
So we should proactively change the definition of life to include theoretical (And clearly impossible) aliens?

Life, in science, is a biological construct. If it doesn't conform to biology, then its not alive. As of now, there's only one exception to the 'life' definition that I know of (Viruses). And for all the Star Trek theory craft of alien life, as far as I know, science hasn't been able to come up with many models for an organism that actually work. The few they have come up with that may be possible are so freakish and bizarre that classifying them as 'life' would be like calling steel wool food because it's made from atoms, just like apples. Worse, many (Like molten silicon life), can only exist in things that are two steps away from the surface of the sun - Even if they could work, there's almost no conceivable way that anything like that could evolve from anything.

In short, just because its not alive doesn't mean it can't be sentient. And I have no problem with such potential creatures. But if their so ridiculously different, why do we have to label them as we do ourselves?
I'd hardly call them impossible. Just because we haven't encountered them doesn't mean they are theoretically impossible.
I'm saying that IF we encounter such things, then yes, the definition should be changed, because it no longer fits what we apply it to.
You don't think that "Sentient but not alive" is rather paradoxical?
Considering that not everything alive is sentient, no, I don't.
I'd say it comes down to a matter of what connotations 'alive' carries. Is there any ethical connotations at all for you? Or is it just an arbitrary distinction which holds to sway over matters at hand at all?
For instance, should alive and 'dead' sentient be treated differently when it comes to matters of voting, or rights, etc? If they both have the same needs and the same desires.
From a moral perspective, I'd have no objections whatsoever to any being, artificial (Cyborg), or otherwise, that we rated relatively similar to us in cognitive capabilities, being able to vote, or anything else of that nature.

I'm not saying these things would be less then us, I'm just saying that it wouldn't be alive as we currently describe it. If the description changes, it would make no practical difference.

But, at this point, with everything we know, these things are not alive, or even possible. That may change one day.

We don't really have that big of a difference in opinion. I'm not saying that things that don't fall under the 'life' category are less then us, they just aren't even close to us.

EDIT: Dead implies something was once alive. It's a subtraction of something, not something different.
 

Realitycrash

New member
Dec 12, 2010
2,779
0
0
AccursedTheory said:
Realitycrash said:
AccursedTheory said:
Realitycrash said:
AccursedTheory said:
Realitycrash said:
AccursedTheory said:
Realitycrash said:
AccursedTheory said:
Technically, the cyborg in your scenario is not a life form.

Wikipedia said:
Biology

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following characteristics or traits:[29][31][32]

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells ? the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
The cyborg fails to pass Organization (It is not made up of cells), Growth (it does not actually grow, unless components are added that the body itself does not process), Adaptation (The Cyborg cannot change its body over time. One could argue that a series of upgrades qualifies, but again, this is not adaptation in a biological sense), and reproduction.

Of course, the definition of life has become a bit tricky as of late. But usually exceptions are made when something fails one requirement, not four.

Also, its debatable as to whether 'cyborgs' in 'Ghost in a Shell' are even cyborgs at all. Cyborg implies that there are some organic parts, while if I remember correctly, Ghost in a Shell's cybrorgs are entirely mechanical, even the brain.
The question of biology isn't the relevant one here. The question is, as you have alluded to, is whether or not being sentient is enough to carry all the ethical implications of being 'human'. And if the cyborg isn't sentient because it is just a program, then what does that say about Free Will for humans?

I say that if the cyborg can function in the same fashion humans can, and display desires and emotions, then we have no reason not to consider it as human on any ethically relevant position.
Then the question isn't 'Is it a life form,' its 'Is it a person?'

I'd agree that the Cyborg is a 'person,' or sentient being if you prefer.
But the current description of life is flawed, simply because IRL, we don't have another example of a life-form. If we discover sentient aliens made out of hydrogen-gas, why shouldn't that be considered a life? Same with a machine. Just because our current definition talks about biology doesn't mean that said definition should be changed if we encounter something with human-like sentience which does not have the same physical properties as we do.
So we should proactively change the definition of life to include theoretical (And clearly impossible) aliens?

Life, in science, is a biological construct. If it doesn't conform to biology, then its not alive. As of now, there's only one exception to the 'life' definition that I know of (Viruses). And for all the Star Trek theory craft of alien life, as far as I know, science hasn't been able to come up with many models for an organism that actually work. The few they have come up with that may be possible are so freakish and bizarre that classifying them as 'life' would be like calling steel wool food because it's made from atoms, just like apples. Worse, many (Like molten silicon life), can only exist in things that are two steps away from the surface of the sun - Even if they could work, there's almost no conceivable way that anything like that could evolve from anything.

In short, just because its not alive doesn't mean it can't be sentient. And I have no problem with such potential creatures. But if their so ridiculously different, why do we have to label them as we do ourselves?
I'd hardly call them impossible. Just because we haven't encountered them doesn't mean they are theoretically impossible.
I'm saying that IF we encounter such things, then yes, the definition should be changed, because it no longer fits what we apply it to.
You don't think that "Sentient but not alive" is rather paradoxical?
Considering that not everything alive is sentient, no, I don't.
I'd say it comes down to a matter of what connotations 'alive' carries. Is there any ethical connotations at all for you? Or is it just an arbitrary distinction which holds to sway over matters at hand at all?
For instance, should alive and 'dead' sentient be treated differently when it comes to matters of voting, or rights, etc? If they both have the same needs and the same desires.
From a moral perspective, I'd have no objections whatsoever to any being, artificial (Cyborg), or otherwise, that we rated relatively similar to us in cognitive capabilities, being able to vote, or anything else of that nature.

I'm not saying these things would be less then us, I'm just saying that it wouldn't be alive as we currently describe it. If the description changes, it would make no practical difference.

But, at this point, with everything we know, these things are not alive, or even possible. That may change one day.

We don't really have that big of a difference in opinion. I'm not saying that things that don't fall under the 'life' category are less then us, they just aren't even close to us.

EDIT: Dead implies something was once alive. It's a subtraction of something, not something different.
Then the alive/not alive distinction becomes meaningless. If it does not carry any further connotations, then in this context, there is nothing more to say on it.
 
Jun 16, 2010
1,153
0
0
I think we should expand our definition of 'life form' beyond biological concepts. In reality, everything listed here...
AccursedTheory said:
Wikipedia said:
Biology

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following characteristics or traits:[29][31][32]

  • [li]Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.[/li]
    [li]Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells ? the basic units of life.[/li]
    [li]Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.[/li]
    [li]Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.[/li]
    [li]Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.[/li]
    [li]Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.[/li]
    [li]Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.[/li]
... is merely an extension of the idea that our bodies are self-sustaining machines.
A cyborg could easily be built (using sufficiently advanced technology) to be self-sustaining.
In fact, using the definition of life as essentially "that which keeps itself alive" is really a tautology, isn't it?
 

Bruce

New member
Jun 15, 2013
276
0
0
Surely you mean an android? Considering a guy with a pacemaker qualifies as a cyborg?
 

IamLEAM1983

Neloth's got swag.
Aug 22, 2011
2,581
0
0
Bruce said:
Surely you mean an android? Considering a guy with a pacemaker qualifies as a cyborg?
A guy with plain-jane glasses qualifies as a cyborg, which makes the entire discussion moot, at this point. I wear corrective lenses, I'm clearly sentient if I'm typing this, and I fulfill all the biological imperatives that define life as we know it.

An android, on the other hand... By the way, OP, don't forget that Motoko Kusanagi still operates with a human brain - one that happens to be housed in a cybernetic shell.
 

Angelous Wang

Lord of I Don't Care
Oct 18, 2011
575
0
0
Bruce said:
Surely you mean an android? Considering a guy with a pacemaker qualifies as a cyborg?
This is what I was thinking.

Humans or other animals are organic beings.
Human or animal given extra or replacement synthetic parts are Cyborgs.
Created synthetic life forms are Androids.
Synthetic life forms that are given biological living parts are Bio-Androids.

Cyborgs are Human, they were born that way.

So the person in the OP must ether be an Android or a Bio-Android.

As for the OP, I would say as long as the Android does indeed have a true conciousness equivalent to a Human being then it is alive regardless of any other factors.
 

GabeZhul

New member
Mar 8, 2012
699
0
0
As said before, this is another case of "asking the wrong questions". "Cyborgs" are biological living beings with mechanical parts grafted into their bodies. Technically a man with a pacemaker or a war-veteran with one of those fancy, movable prosthetic limbs are all considered cyborgs, so using the term completely derails the discussion. As such I will go ahead and presume that the OP actually either meant "android" or at least "artificial intelligence", and "alive" being synonymous with "sentient".

Now, taken that we are already biological machines, I see no problem with an android being sentient, or even alive. In fact, making something "alive" is a lot easier than making it sentient. Case in point, just creating a self-replicating robot with built-in self-preservation algorithms would do the trick. Of course we would probably only be able to do something like that once we perfect nano-technology, as that is the only scale where basic self-replication is possible and the systems are simple enough to serve as a starting point for evolution, but otherwise it's more than feasible.

Now, for sentience, that is a lot harder nut to break, mostly because we don't even really know what makes humans so. After all, we are not -born- sentient, are we? It takes us half a decade just to reach a level of sentience that is objectively greater than animal intelligence, and that is only the starting point!

As such, I think sentience is not something you can program, but it will come from creating a basic mainframe that is capable of adapting, and then teach it until it reaches the singularity, just like how you would do with a human child. Sadly it is much easier said than done.

But again, if we start from the premise of already sentient androids, then there is no reason to make difference between humans and synthetics, as long as both sides would have the same: self awareness, self reflection, adaptability and creativity. At that point there is simply no distinction between the two the same way there is no distinction between a short white man and a tall black woman. The important thing is what's inside, and as long as it matches our definition of sentience, everything is fair game.