XPost: alt.paranormal, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian, alt.russian.z1   
   From: andrew.321.remov@usa.net   
      
   "Oleg Smirnov" wrote in message news:10aip8m$a7h7$1@os.motzarella.org...   
   > Dawn Flood wrote:   
   >> Oleg Smirnov wrote:   
   >>> Dawn Flood wrote:   
   >   
   >>>> https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/research/life-detection/about/   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "A self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution".   
   >>>   
   >>> In no way it may be accepted as an accurate definition of life.   
   >>>   
   >>> Every/either system is chemical (as well as physical etc) system,   
   >>> so chemical-ness doesn't represent any informative specificity.   
   >>> What means "self-sustaining" - itself needs to be defined. And in   
   >>> order to make Darwinian evolution out one would need time much   
   >>> much longer than the characteristic lifespans of living organisms,   
   >>> including humans, so they would be unable to somehow employ this   
   >>> "definition" practically to define (see) life or non-life.   
   >>>   
   >>> NASA honestly state there that "for generations the definition of   
   >>> life has eluded scientists and philosophers", but they pretend   
   >>> dishonestly they have managed to somehow cope with this elusion.   
   >>   
   >> 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".   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)