Could a Machine ever be a living thing?

[cdmars]

If someone created a computer/robot that:

-could reproduce (produce other computers without human interference)

-could pass traits onto its offspring

-could maintain its own homeostasis

-could grow and develop

-had a complex chemistry (complex series of processes allowing it to think and move"

-could respond to stimuli in their environment

would it ever be considered alive even if it were not made of cells?

[Delta1212]

Life is an ill-defined concept. We can't even agree on whether a virus is alive or not. Some people would consider that machine to be alive. Others would not.

[ADreamIveDreamt]

Could a living thing ever be a machine?

[WWLabRat]

Life is an ill-defined concept. We can't even agree on whether a virus is alive or not. Some people would consider that machine to be alive. Others would not.

 

Every living organism has a set of criteria they meet in order to be considered living. Of the seven criteria for being recognized as life (Homeostasis, Organization, Metabolism, Growth, Adaptation, Response to Stimuli, and Reproduction), viruses only meet five of these. They require a host cell in order to replicate and also do not metabolize to produce energy. However, many scientists view them as a precursor to life as we know it since they do have genetic material that is affected by natural selection.

 

As for the OP, that machine would not be able to meet our current description of life. It's missing genetic material (although it's arguable that the data stored in it's memory is the digital equivalent), it would not be able to metabolize as it doesn't take in other organisms or chemicals to have/produce energy, it would be incapable of growing, and it doesn't have any cellular organization as it doesn't have cells.

 

That being said, the closest approximation to life that would be able to be achieved with a machine would be within nanomachines. If a nanomachine were able to replicate itself on the micro level by using free matter in its surroundings, capable of producing energy by breaking down and achieve a form of cellular respiration with chemicals around it, maintain it's internal functions, grow not just by adding matter to it, but actually replicating the nanomachines to create a larger "organism", adapt to its environments, respond to stimuli, and replicate similar nanomachines that would comprise a separate "organism". At that point, it's plausible that we could consider it "life".

[EdEarl]

IMO all living things are machines. An automobile engine converts gasoline into mechanical energy, people convert sugar into mechanical energy. Our brains calculate, computers calculate. Living things are much more than machines, however.

Edited September 4, 2013 by EdEarl

[Delta1212]

How many of those seven qualities a thing needs to fulfill to be considered alive, and indeed, whether those criteria represent a universally useful description of life is far from being a settled question. I'm aware of the biological definition of life just as I'm aware of the fact that the criteria area essentially arbitrary descriptions of qualities commonly found in living things. When you are creating a definition by looking at a group of things that you already consider to be part of a category and then finding commonalities, excluding future discoveries from the group because they lack a couple of those categories is problematic.

 

The two schools of boil down to "the category is established, anything that doesn't fall within it doesn't qualify" and "this looks like it belongs in the category to me, and since the initial set of criteria were essentially subjective based on available information at the time, there's no particular reason to exclude something that is only slightly different."

 

And even setting aside viruses, there is disagreement over whether a number of things qualify as being alive: are parts of a living organism that do not themselves make up a complete organism qualify as being alive? Variously while they are part of that organism or detached from it? Does being made up of living component qualify something as being alive in its own right? Does sterility disqualify something from nesting all criteria for life? If a body that is brain dead fails to respond to stimuli, is it alive or dead?

 

Categorical definitions in biology tend to be very blurry because they are often attempts to create strict deliberations between categories that don't have a strict objective reality and the cutoff points are generally logical but ultimately arbitrary. Categorizing life itself is no exception.

[WWLabRat]

 

Every living organism has a set of criteria they meet in order to be considered living. Of the seven criteria for being recognized as life (Homeostasis, Organization, Metabolism, Growth, Adaptation, Response to Stimuli, and Reproduction), viruses only meet five of these. They require a host cell in order to replicate and also do not metabolize to produce energy. However, many scientists view them as a precursor to life as we know it since they do have genetic material that is affected by natural selection.

 

As for the OP, that machine would not be able to meet our current description of life. It's missing genetic material (although it's arguable that the data stored in it's memory is the digital equivalent), it would not be able to metabolize as it doesn't take in other organisms or chemicals to have/produce energy, it would be incapable of growing, and it doesn't have any cellular organization as it doesn't have cells.

 

That being said, the closest approximation to life that would be able to be achieved with a machine would be within nanomachines. If a nanomachine were able to replicate itself on the micro level by using free matter in its surroundings, capable of producing energy by breaking down and achieve a form of cellular respiration with chemicals around it, maintain it's internal functions, grow not just by adding matter to it, but actually replicating the nanomachines to create a larger "organism", adapt to its environments, respond to stimuli, and replicate similar nanomachines that would comprise a separate "organism". At that point, it's plausible that we could consider it "life".

 

 

How many of those seven qualities a thing needs to fulfill to be considered alive, and indeed, whether those criteria represent a universally useful description of life is far from being a settled question. I'm aware of the biological definition of life just as I'm aware of the fact that the criteria area essentially arbitrary descriptions of qualities commonly found in living things. When you are creating a definition by looking at a group of things that you already consider to be part of a category and then finding commonalities, excluding future discoveries from the group because they lack a couple of those categories is problematic.

 

The two schools of boil down to "the category is established, anything that doesn't fall within it doesn't qualify" and "this looks like it belongs in the category to me, and since the initial set of criteria were essentially subjective based on available information at the time, there's no particular reason to exclude something that is only slightly different."

 

And even setting aside viruses, there is disagreement over whether a number of things qualify as being alive: are parts of a living organism that do not themselves make up a complete organism qualify as being alive? Variously while they are part of that organism or detached from it? Does being made up of living component qualify something as being alive in its own right? Does sterility disqualify something from nesting all criteria for life? If a body that is brain dead fails to respond to stimuli, is it alive or dead?

 

Categorical definitions in biology tend to be very blurry because they are often attempts to create strict deliberations between categories that don't have a strict objective reality and the cutoff points are generally logical but ultimately arbitrary. Categorizing life itself is no exception.

 

As I stated in my post, those are the characteristics by which we -currently- define life. I'm sure if there's an entity that comes to light in the future (whether minutes from now to millenia or more) I'm sure scientists will adjust this definition of life to match what we couldn't have known before.

[Delta1212]

 

 

 

As I stated in my post, those are the characteristics by which we -currently- define life. I'm sure if there's an entity that comes to light in the future (whether minutes from now to millenia or more) I'm sure scientists will adjust this definition of life to match what we couldn't have known before.

See: debate about whether viruses qualify as life

[WWLabRat]

By the current accepted description and characteristics of life, viruses do not fall under the term living. They are, however, thought to be a precursor to life, something to link between proteins in a stew to genetic material.

 

EDIT: Hit "Post" instead of "More Reply Options" accidentally.

 

In order for us to allow viruses to be considered life, we would have to remove metabolism from the list. However this would not be possible because that would allow the dead to be considered living. After an entity, be it plant, animal, or bacteria, dies, it is no longer breaking down chemicals on a cellular level and metabolizing said chemicals, thus energy is not produced.

Edited September 4, 2013 by WWLabRat

[CharonY]

 

 

As I stated in my post, those are the characteristics by which we -currently- define life. I'm sure if there's an entity that comes to light in the future (whether minutes from now to millenia or more) I'm sure scientists will adjust this definition of life to match what we couldn't have known before.

 

I assume you are aware that these criteria are neither universal nor undisputed and essentially is descriptive? I.e. the definition is essentially derived by first declaring something to be alive (i.e. cell) and then distinguish it from everything else.

[EdEarl]

me·tab·o·lism

[muh-tab-uh-liz-uhm]

 

noun

1.

Biology, Physiology . the sum of the physical and chemical processes in an organism by which its material substance is produced, maintained, and destroyed, and by which energy is made available. Compare anabolism, catabolism.

 

2.

any basic process of organic functioning or operating: changes in the country's economic metabolism.

The first definition, "the sum of the physical and chemical processes in an organism by which its material substance is produced, maintained, and destroyed, and by which energy is made available," could (except for the word organism) describe physical and chemical processes in a gasoline engine to make available energy. The materials gasoline and air are mixed to produce a vapor that is maintained in tubes until it is destroyed in the combustion chamber.

 

I am not saying the two are equivalent, but there are similarities. An engine is not alive, an organism is. But, I believe when all the processes and parts of a cell have been identified, each one will be inanimate, and only the whole organism will be alive. Moreover, the definition of life is likely remain elusive.

[WWLabRat]

 

I assume you are aware that these criteria are neither universal nor undisputed and essentially is descriptive? I.e. the definition is essentially derived by first declaring something to be alive (i.e. cell) and then distinguish it from everything else.

 

I am very much aware that our definitions/criteria/etc are not universal. When I write my posts, I make sure to choose my wording, especially being that this is a scientific community and most everything is under scrutiny from multiple people coming from multiple backgrounds. That being said, the characteristics of life, as we describe it, has to be based on what we are readily able to observe. This list helps to point out things that would disqualify various objects from being construed as living. A rock, for example, doesn't replicate, it doesn't metabolize, there's no genetic material to pass on to its nonexistent offspring, there's no cellular makeup, nor is there any homeostasis, response to outside stimuli, or adaptation to its environment. Thus, a rock is not living. A wooden chair, meets many of these, being that it was once alive, but it doesn't metabolize so it's not living either. A single cell meets all of these which is why we currently accept it as the most basic form of life.

 

The first definition, "the sum of the physical and chemical processes in an organism by which its material substance is produced, maintained, and destroyed, and by which energy is made available," could (except for the word organism) describe physical and chemical processes in a gasoline engine to make available energy. The materials gasoline and air are mixed to produce a vapor that is maintained in tubes until it is destroyed in the combustion chamber.

 

I am not saying the two are equivalent, but there are similarities. An engine is not alive, an organism is. But, I believe when all the processes and parts of a cell have been identified, each one will be inanimate, and only the whole organism will be alive. Moreover, the definition of life is likely remain elusive.

 

Although the function of a internal combustion engine could be viewed as having metabolism, it doesn't meet the other characteristics of life, so like you said, it's not alive.