XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian, alt.russian.z1   
   From: os333@netc.eu   
      
   Andrew,    
   > "Oleg Smirnov" wrote in message news:10aip8m$a7h7$1@os.motzarella.org...   
   >> Dawn Flood wrote:   
      
   >>> What's your definition then?   
   >>   
   >> I did not claim to have one. The point upstream the thread is   
   >> that, practically, humans usually can distinguish quite well   
   >> between what is alive and what is not alive. Not only humans,   
   >> animals also do (some claim plants also do). However, we don't   
   >> seem to completely understand - 'theoretically' - the way this   
   >> discernment happens (which is expressed through 'elusion' of   
   >> clear formalizable criteria to define life vs. non-life).   
   >>   
   >> In other words, within our incomplete understanding of what is   
   >> life we, in particular, do not completely understand how living   
   >> things recognize each other as living things.   
   >>   
   >> This consideration shouldn't be taken as some anti-scientific   
   >> nihilism / obscurantism. It hardly can prevent researchers from   
   >> searching, studying forms of life. It still can bring some   
   >> sobering element against too bold / controversial speculations   
   >> regarding 'artificially made life', AI and the like.   
   >   
   > Let us note that this, 'artificially made life', AI and the like."   
   > that you refer to, came to be as the result of being "created".   
      
   I refer to discussion topics.   
      
   None of the mentioned is real creation of life.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)