Mine-- A complex, intricate collection of mechanisms that function to maintain their existence (relatively speaking).
I could have included genes and procreation in my definition but we may discover things with the aforementioned qualities that do not procreate nor have genes.
Imagine a lifeform so complex it covers the surface of an entire planet. It is the only lifeform on this planet. Slowly, slowly, all the individual, egoistic lifeforms have symbiotically merged into 1 Megalifeform. This Megalifeform has lifeforms within lifeforms. It has lifeforms that specialize in gathering nutrients from the soil. It has lifeforms that specialize in photosynthesis. Others that collect water, others that defend itself from rogue (mutates, cancers) and alien lifeforms (life from other planets). Some that provide shelter and some that colonize other planets. Perhaps after billions of years of evolution, all planets capable of supporting life end up with a Megalifeform or several competing Megalifeforms.
Megaforms may also have lifeforms that specialize in governing the others. Imagine a Megaform with a brain composed of millions of humanoids. Brains within brains within brains.
Yes in that they respond to touch, especially disturbing touch. They react such as to maintain their inner harmony as well as they can manage. And thus, they continue. Their growth is merely a strategy to protect that inner harmony that defines what they are. They resist change, but compromise by changing enough to allow for what they cannot resist.
That was pretty much the agreed thought in Science for a long time. I don’t think it has changed.
The object is not merely to reduce all humans into transistors within a larger lifeform. The objective is to increase all humans WHILE maintaining a larger lifeform. Subjugation is the easy way to make a larger lifeform. But it requires that all sub-life be reduced into a gray mass of almost unconscious obedience.
No. They don’t. A common misunderstanding that leads straight into socialistic tyranny.
The neurons are not all that different from other cells. They function to serve a system (the brain) so as to relay “information”. They do not control anything themselves.
But in addition, the brain doesn’t control the body organs or cells either. It merely coordinates their reported needs and efforts. THAT is the right way to do it assuming the cells and organs have no capability of substantial awareness.
A simple challenge that I had proposed back in the 80’s;
Take 1000 primates of any sort and establish them into an order that functions to protect and maintain the entire group and its order without the additional aid of homosapians and without reducing the intelligence of any primate. As part of the task, create a frame whereby the individuals can cofunction so as to literally stand up above the forest and walk so as to step over troubles and toward more food as well as escape danger. The “Transformer” series depicts material objects doing that very thing (a simpler task).
The tall cofunctioning group, would constitute a larger life form in itself. But the monkeys could not be merely degraded into robotic obedience, they had to remain fully primate as much as they were before if not more intelligent.
Probably the best definition I’ve encountered was “sustained disequilibrium” – which is very close to your #1. There have been some good discussions that touch on this topic.
I suppose they are kind of conscious in a primitive sort of way.
I won’t accept their assessment without a reason. I don’t believe I have received 1 yet.
We are borg…
Hahaha, lol, you’re awesome James.
The neurons are not all that different from other cells. They function to serve a system (the brain) so as to relay “information”. They do not control anything themselves.
Wow, you’ve been around, haven’t you James?
Hmmm, I don’t know, I kind of like my Megaforms.
I think we’re in control of our bodies, subconsciously (reptilian brain) and consciously. I think socialism or meritocracy just might work if all parties behaved altruistically (idealism-- an impossibility at this time, but we’re evolving). Resistance is futile…
I suspect that so as to obtain an even more refined definition, we might be able to include the act of feeding.
A complex mechanism, such as a virus and complex molecules, might emote and replicate, but they do not actually metabolize such as to restore their energy or body parts. They merely spread.
A sperm cell doesn’t feed (I don’t think) and when it runs out of stored energy it simply stops. A sperm cell, although referred to as “being alive”, is really only a body part released so as to help replicate another full body. It is viral, but not a life. It is a bit like a hair that has fallen off but has not yet begun to dry out and decay and of course is seldom used to replicate a new body (unless society chooses to use it that way).
It might be necessary and useful to distinguish something that can be restored to a body or used to replicate a full body from a more independent metabolizing lifeform.
Meart doesn’t have genes nor procreate (weak definition).
Meart’s mechanisms don’t function to maintain it’s existence (strong definition). If I try to break Meart, will Meart attempt to foil me? No, it will not. Will Meart’s body attempt body attempt to repair itself? No, it will not.
That’s just 1 of the many ways a collection of mechanisms attempts to maintain it’s existence.
In the broad sense of the word (life), I think it’s alive. In a narrow sense, no. It doesn’t utilize the full spectrum of life maintain and sustaining abilities (feeding), but utilizes some of them (locating a replication source, replicating).
(Once again) In the broad sense of the word (life), I think it’s alive. In a narrow sense, no.
That isn’t true, the neuronal cells that make up the biological component of Meart have genes as well as the capacity to grow and replicate.
Why is that the “strong definition”? Furthermore, what does that really even mean? If I step on a plant, does the plant attempt to foil me? If I throw yeast into a fire will they try to foil me?
I finally got the time to read on MEART with the intention of returning with an argument. Needless to say, I left more confused than when I began the article.
The only thing that stuck in my mind is the absence of self-sustaining behavior. From what I can tell, MEART is essentially a neurally controlled puppet. They do mention it can be made aware of its environment, but can something be ‘alive’ to which death doesn’t seem inevitable, or of any consequence?
I think MEART is, perhaps, alive. I will say the whole experiment strikes me as rather …perverse, though.
[size=150]“The content of this response has been removed from this topic and placed into the “Hall of Shame” by your friendly neighborhood moderator, Liteninbolt”[/size]
