On 2023-11-16, pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 9:48:37 AM UTC-5, Chris Buckley wrote:
>> On 2023-11-15, Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 12:38:53 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
>> ><pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 11:35:44?PM UTC-5, Kevrob wrote:
>> >>> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 1:06:08?AM UTC-4, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> [snip] {4th attempt. Trying in a new window}
>> >>> > So, a sterile person is dead?
>> >>> A queen bee is alive, but a drone or worker isn't?
>> >>>
>> >>> A drone and queen can procreate, so they are alive, I guess.
>> >>> The worker is a...remote appendage? The non-procreating
>> >>> drones are doomed. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!
>> >>>
>> >>> https://youtu.be/Nw_cdqQHGA8 Doom!
>> >>
>> >>The immediate predecessor, to which I was responding, was
>> >>David Johnson saying:
>> >>
>> >>> >>>> Nope. Just true by definition. If it has no set of instructions for
>> >>> >>>> making more then it doesn't match the definition of life.
>> Paul, pretending to be an ostrich and burying your head in the sand to
>> avoid replying to me does not mean all of the problems in your
>> arguments disappear.
>> > There is no "definition of life".
>> Only if you are using your private "Paul S Person" definition of
>> "definition." I know of absolutely nobody who agrees with you. There
>> is certainly no single agreed upon definition of "life". There are
>> many definitions of "life" out there. That is a feature of many, many
>> thousands of English words, like "English" or "words" or even concrete
>> things like "chair." People agree on the vast majority of uses of the
>> word, but there is disagreement on the fringes.
>> > There are several practical lists of
>> > criteria to tell if something is "alive" or was "alive" at one time,
>> > and in some cases the "something" is a group rather than an
>> > individual, but those are not definitions of life; they are
>> > field-guides to when we say that something is (or was) alive and are
>> > tuned to a specific purpose.
>> >
>> > BTW, I never gave my "definition of life". I did quote one from the
>> > Internet, which had the advantage of only identifying things that were
>> > alive as being alive (and not including things that only used to be
>> > alive). The whole kurfluffle was set off by someone making the clearly
>> > religious statement that any alien life we discover "has to have
>> > genes".
>> No, it only becomes religious if you have a definition of "life" that
>> does not involve genetics. You do not, so I don't understand how you
>> think you can even make that claim!
>>
>> If someone uses a very standard genetic definition of life (like
>> perhaps the majority of scientists), then "has to have genes" is very
>> clearly *not* religious; it's true by definition.
>> > Which quickly became "has to have DNA, and it has to look
>> > exactly like ours".
>> Once again, a complete fabrication. That didn't happen at all.
>> The original person you were arguing with even directly denied talking
>> about DNA (and I certainly never did.)
>> > We, of course, in fact do not know that alien life
>> > will have DNA at all, never mind DNA like ours, or even that it will
>> > have "genes", unless those are so loosely defined as to make it
>> > possible to say that rocks (not alien rocks, mind you, terrestrial
>> > rocks) have them.
>> >
>> > But I /think/ the statement you cite may have applied to
>> > self-reproducing robots (that is, to the question of whether robots
>> > that build copies of themselves are "alive"), which opened another can
>> > of worms, with one poster confusing "the Halting Problem" with "state
>> > machine", leading to the assertion that self-reproducing robots are
>> > impossible because of infinte regression.
>> >
>> > When I pointed out that any definition of "life" would be coming from
>> > chemistry (which, I should have added, may well be rooted in physics),
>> > we were referred to an article on vitalism, which appears to be what
>> > you would expect from atheists who have lost faith in the ability of
>> > Science to discover the answer but, not having God to rely on, must
>> > now believe in ... something else.
>> >
>> > But I should have been clearer: we do not have a defintion of "life".
>> > If we ever do, with any luck, we will be able to build a life-detector
>> > which, when pointed at anything will tell us whether or not it is
>> > alive. Even if it looks like a rock.
>> Again, nonsense. We have many definitions of "life", all of which are
>> mostly consistent. Definitions are important; they are how we
>> actually convey information to others.
>>
>> Too much of the modern discourse is occurring between folks who are
>> convinced that they each have the one true definition of the word in
>> question, not realizing that the definitions disagree. Words like
>> "racism", "fascism", "woke", "insurrection", "crime", "democracy",
>> "gun control", "free speech", etc are used constantly, but mean
>> different things to different folks, often unknowingly. How can we
>> solve problems when we don't even understand what others are saying?
>
> This is an SF group - we should exercise some imagination.
>
> I could very easily envisage a clearly 'living' entity that doesn't reproduce,
> but is functionally immortal. One example would be the sentient ocean in
> Lem's 'Solaris'.

I consider reproduction to be an essential part when defining "life",
so by my definition I would not consider them "life".
Depending on the circumstances, I might call entities which are close
to "life" but without collective reproduction, "pseudo-life" or
"artificial-life" ("alife").

What is your definition of life that doesn't require reproduction? Does
it say that R. Daneel Olivaw or Multivac is alive (just to use Asimov)?

My memory of _Solaris_ may be faulty since I last read it over 40
years ago, but I don't remember that we were given an "origin story"
for the ocean. I don't think I can classify the ocean one way or the
other. It might be a star-seed-like lifeform propagating across
planets/solar systems, though probably not. Most likely it would fall
under the sub-category of "gods", which I would put in the "alife"
category.
--
Chris

On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:15:33 AM UTC-5, Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2023-11-16, pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 9:48:37 AM UTC-5, Chris Buckley wrote:
> >> On 2023-11-15, Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 12:38:53 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
> >> ><pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 11:35:44?PM UTC-5, Kevrob wrote:
> >> >>> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 1:06:08?AM UTC-4, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> [snip] {4th attempt. Trying in a new window}
> >> >>> > So, a sterile person is dead?
> >> >>> A queen bee is alive, but a drone or worker isn't?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> A drone and queen can procreate, so they are alive, I guess.
> >> >>> The worker is a...remote appendage? The non-procreating
> >> >>> drones are doomed. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> https://youtu.be/Nw_cdqQHGA8 Doom!
> >> >>
> >> >>The immediate predecessor, to which I was responding, was
> >> >>David Johnson saying:
> >> >>
> >> >>> >>>> Nope. Just true by definition. If it has no set of instructions for
> >> >>> >>>> making more then it doesn't match the definition of life.
> >> Paul, pretending to be an ostrich and burying your head in the sand to
> >> avoid replying to me does not mean all of the problems in your
> >> arguments disappear.
> >> > There is no "definition of life".
> >> Only if you are using your private "Paul S Person" definition of
> >> "definition." I know of absolutely nobody who agrees with you. There
> >> is certainly no single agreed upon definition of "life". There are
> >> many definitions of "life" out there. That is a feature of many, many
> >> thousands of English words, like "English" or "words" or even concrete
> >> things like "chair." People agree on the vast majority of uses of the
> >> word, but there is disagreement on the fringes.
> >> > There are several practical lists of
> >> > criteria to tell if something is "alive" or was "alive" at one time,
> >> > and in some cases the "something" is a group rather than an
> >> > individual, but those are not definitions of life; they are
> >> > field-guides to when we say that something is (or was) alive and are
> >> > tuned to a specific purpose.
> >> >
> >> > BTW, I never gave my "definition of life". I did quote one from the
> >> > Internet, which had the advantage of only identifying things that were
> >> > alive as being alive (and not including things that only used to be
> >> > alive). The whole kurfluffle was set off by someone making the clearly
> >> > religious statement that any alien life we discover "has to have
> >> > genes".
> >> No, it only becomes religious if you have a definition of "life" that
> >> does not involve genetics. You do not, so I don't understand how you
> >> think you can even make that claim!
> >>
> >> If someone uses a very standard genetic definition of life (like
> >> perhaps the majority of scientists), then "has to have genes" is very
> >> clearly *not* religious; it's true by definition.
> >> > Which quickly became "has to have DNA, and it has to look
> >> > exactly like ours".
> >> Once again, a complete fabrication. That didn't happen at all.
> >> The original person you were arguing with even directly denied talking
> >> about DNA (and I certainly never did.)
> >> > We, of course, in fact do not know that alien life
> >> > will have DNA at all, never mind DNA like ours, or even that it will
> >> > have "genes", unless those are so loosely defined as to make it
> >> > possible to say that rocks (not alien rocks, mind you, terrestrial
> >> > rocks) have them.
> >> >
> >> > But I /think/ the statement you cite may have applied to
> >> > self-reproducing robots (that is, to the question of whether robots
> >> > that build copies of themselves are "alive"), which opened another can
> >> > of worms, with one poster confusing "the Halting Problem" with "state
> >> > machine", leading to the assertion that self-reproducing robots are
> >> > impossible because of infinte regression.
> >> >
> >> > When I pointed out that any definition of "life" would be coming from
> >> > chemistry (which, I should have added, may well be rooted in physics),
> >> > we were referred to an article on vitalism, which appears to be what
> >> > you would expect from atheists who have lost faith in the ability of
> >> > Science to discover the answer but, not having God to rely on, must
> >> > now believe in ... something else.
> >> >
> >> > But I should have been clearer: we do not have a defintion of "life"..
> >> > If we ever do, with any luck, we will be able to build a life-detector
> >> > which, when pointed at anything will tell us whether or not it is
> >> > alive. Even if it looks like a rock.
> >> Again, nonsense. We have many definitions of "life", all of which are
> >> mostly consistent. Definitions are important; they are how we
> >> actually convey information to others.
> >>
> >> Too much of the modern discourse is occurring between folks who are
> >> convinced that they each have the one true definition of the word in
> >> question, not realizing that the definitions disagree. Words like
> >> "racism", "fascism", "woke", "insurrection", "crime", "democracy",
> >> "gun control", "free speech", etc are used constantly, but mean
> >> different things to different folks, often unknowingly. How can we
> >> solve problems when we don't even understand what others are saying?
> >
> > This is an SF group - we should exercise some imagination.
> >
> > I could very easily envisage a clearly 'living' entity that doesn't reproduce,
> > but is functionally immortal. One example would be the sentient ocean in
> > Lem's 'Solaris'.
>
> I consider reproduction to be an essential part when defining "life",
> so by my definition I would not consider them "life".
> Depending on the circumstances, I might call entities which are close
> to "life" but without collective reproduction, "pseudo-life" or
> "artificial-life" ("alife").
>
> What is your definition of life that doesn't require reproduction? Does
> it say that R. Daneel Olivaw or Multivac is alive (just to use Asimov)?

I'd say that it has to:

1 React to the environment to maintain its integrity and continued existence.
2 Repair at least minor damage.
3 Attempt to extend its pattern into the available environment.

Asmiov's laws are fictional, not practical, and written with plenty of ambiguity
to hang stories on. But I'll play along.

1 and 2 are 3rd law related. However, Daneel and Multivac fail on 3 (though
you could argue about 'The Last Question'.)

3 can be covered by reproduction, but there are other ways it can happen.
For example, a sterile Pando.

https://www.americanforests.org/article/the-heaviest-organism-on-the-planet/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)

Pando is a clone forest of quaking aspen trees in Utah. Its a single
individual, all the trees spring from the roots of others and remain connected
underground.

At the moment, Pando covers 106 acres, has 47,000 trunks, and weighs around
6,600 tons - about 33x the weight of a blue whale.

Pando is estimated to be several thousand years old, and some estimates go as
high as a million years. 

Now, here's the hypothetical: Suppose the original seed that Pando sprang from
had a mutation that made Pando's pollen sterile (Pando is male). It can't
reproduce, going against your rule.

But it's a forest of quaking aspen, which grows, replacing lost parts, and reacts
to the seasons. It's maintained its integrity and grown for thousands of years.
It predates you, and will likely be around long after you're gone.

On 2023-11-18, pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:15:33 AM UTC-5, Chris Buckley wrote:
>> On 2023-11-16, pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 9:48:37 AM UTC-5, Chris Buckley wrote:
>> >> On 2023-11-15, Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 12:38:53 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
>> >> ><pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 11:35:44?PM UTC-5, Kevrob wrote:
>> >> >>> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 1:06:08?AM UTC-4, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> [snip] {4th attempt. Trying in a new window}
>> >> >>> > So, a sterile person is dead?
>> >> >>> A queen bee is alive, but a drone or worker isn't?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> A drone and queen can procreate, so they are alive, I guess.
>> >> >>> The worker is a...remote appendage? The non-procreating
>> >> >>> drones are doomed. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> https://youtu.be/Nw_cdqQHGA8 Doom!
>> >> >>
>> >> >>The immediate predecessor, to which I was responding, was
>> >> >>David Johnson saying:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >>>> Nope. Just true by definition. If it has no set of instructions for
>> >> >>> >>>> making more then it doesn't match the definition of life.
>> >> Paul, pretending to be an ostrich and burying your head in the sand to
>> >> avoid replying to me does not mean all of the problems in your
>> >> arguments disappear.
>> >> > There is no "definition of life".
>> >> Only if you are using your private "Paul S Person" definition of
>> >> "definition." I know of absolutely nobody who agrees with you. There
>> >> is certainly no single agreed upon definition of "life". There are
>> >> many definitions of "life" out there. That is a feature of many, many
>> >> thousands of English words, like "English" or "words" or even concrete
>> >> things like "chair." People agree on the vast majority of uses of the
>> >> word, but there is disagreement on the fringes.
>> >> > There are several practical lists of
>> >> > criteria to tell if something is "alive" or was "alive" at one time,
>> >> > and in some cases the "something" is a group rather than an
>> >> > individual, but those are not definitions of life; they are
>> >> > field-guides to when we say that something is (or was) alive and are
>> >> > tuned to a specific purpose.
>> >> >
>> >> > BTW, I never gave my "definition of life". I did quote one from the
>> >> > Internet, which had the advantage of only identifying things that were
>> >> > alive as being alive (and not including things that only used to be
>> >> > alive). The whole kurfluffle was set off by someone making the clearly
>> >> > religious statement that any alien life we discover "has to have
>> >> > genes".
>> >> No, it only becomes religious if you have a definition of "life" that
>> >> does not involve genetics. You do not, so I don't understand how you
>> >> think you can even make that claim!
>> >>
>> >> If someone uses a very standard genetic definition of life (like
>> >> perhaps the majority of scientists), then "has to have genes" is very
>> >> clearly *not* religious; it's true by definition.
>> >> > Which quickly became "has to have DNA, and it has to look
>> >> > exactly like ours".
>> >> Once again, a complete fabrication. That didn't happen at all.
>> >> The original person you were arguing with even directly denied talking
>> >> about DNA (and I certainly never did.)
>> >> > We, of course, in fact do not know that alien life
>> >> > will have DNA at all, never mind DNA like ours, or even that it will
>> >> > have "genes", unless those are so loosely defined as to make it
>> >> > possible to say that rocks (not alien rocks, mind you, terrestrial
>> >> > rocks) have them.
>> >> >
>> >> > But I /think/ the statement you cite may have applied to
>> >> > self-reproducing robots (that is, to the question of whether robots
>> >> > that build copies of themselves are "alive"), which opened another can
>> >> > of worms, with one poster confusing "the Halting Problem" with "state
>> >> > machine", leading to the assertion that self-reproducing robots are
>> >> > impossible because of infinte regression.
>> >> >
>> >> > When I pointed out that any definition of "life" would be coming from
>> >> > chemistry (which, I should have added, may well be rooted in physics),
>> >> > we were referred to an article on vitalism, which appears to be what
>> >> > you would expect from atheists who have lost faith in the ability of
>> >> > Science to discover the answer but, not having God to rely on, must
>> >> > now believe in ... something else.
>> >> >
>> >> > But I should have been clearer: we do not have a defintion of "life".
>> >> > If we ever do, with any luck, we will be able to build a life-detector
>> >> > which, when pointed at anything will tell us whether or not it is
>> >> > alive. Even if it looks like a rock.
>> >> Again, nonsense. We have many definitions of "life", all of which are
>> >> mostly consistent. Definitions are important; they are how we
>> >> actually convey information to others.
>> >>
>> >> Too much of the modern discourse is occurring between folks who are
>> >> convinced that they each have the one true definition of the word in
>> >> question, not realizing that the definitions disagree. Words like
>> >> "racism", "fascism", "woke", "insurrection", "crime", "democracy",
>> >> "gun control", "free speech", etc are used constantly, but mean
>> >> different things to different folks, often unknowingly. How can we
>> >> solve problems when we don't even understand what others are saying?
>> >
>> > This is an SF group - we should exercise some imagination.
>> >
>> > I could very easily envisage a clearly 'living' entity that doesn't reproduce,
>> > but is functionally immortal. One example would be the sentient ocean in
>> > Lem's 'Solaris'.
>>
>> I consider reproduction to be an essential part when defining "life",
>> so by my definition I would not consider them "life".
>> Depending on the circumstances, I might call entities which are close
>> to "life" but without collective reproduction, "pseudo-life" or
>> "artificial-life" ("alife").
>>
>> What is your definition of life that doesn't require reproduction? Does
>> it say that R. Daneel Olivaw or Multivac is alive (just to use Asimov)?
>
> I'd say that it has to:
>
> 1 React to the environment to maintain its integrity and continued existence.
> 2 Repair at least minor damage.
> 3 Attempt to extend its pattern into the available environment.
>
> Asmiov's laws are fictional, not practical, and written with plenty of ambiguity
> to hang stories on. But I'll play along.
>
> 1 and 2 are 3rd law related. However, Daneel and Multivac fail on 3 (though
> you could argue about 'The Last Question'.)

I'm not sure how you can claim 3 is failed. Surely Daneel and Multivac
took many steps throughout their existence to prolong civilization and
the continued production of robots. Or if you need something more direct,
do they suddenly become "alive" if they work on a clone of themselves?

> 3 can be covered by reproduction, but there are other ways it can happen.
> For example, a sterile Pando.
>
> https://www.americanforests.org/article/the-heaviest-organism-on-the-planet/
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)
>
> Pando is a clone forest of quaking aspen trees in Utah. Its a single
> individual, all the trees spring from the roots of others and remain connected
> underground.
>
> At the moment, Pando covers 106 acres, has 47,000 trunks, and weighs around
> 6,600 tons - about 33x the weight of a blue whale.
>
> Pando is estimated to be several thousand years old, and some estimates go as
> high as a million years. 
>
> Now, here's the hypothetical: Suppose the original seed that Pando sprang from
> had a mutation that made Pando's pollen sterile (Pando is male). It can't
> reproduce, going against your rule.
>
> But it's a forest of quaking aspen, which grows, replacing lost parts, and reacts
> to the seasons. It's maintained its integrity and grown for thousands of years.
> It predates you, and will likely be around long after you're gone.
>
> Is Sterile Pando alive?

On 11/18/2023 11:41 AM, Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2023-11-18, pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:15:33 AM UTC-5, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>> On 2023-11-16, pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 9:48:37 AM UTC-5, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-11-15, Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 12:38:53 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>>>>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 11:35:44?PM UTC-5, Kevrob wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 1:06:08?AM UTC-4, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [snip] {4th attempt. Trying in a new window}
>>>>>>>>> So, a sterile person is dead?
>>>>>>>> A queen bee is alive, but a drone or worker isn't?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A drone and queen can procreate, so they are alive, I guess.
>>>>>>>> The worker is a...remote appendage? The non-procreating
>>>>>>>> drones are doomed. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/Nw_cdqQHGA8 Doom!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The immediate predecessor, to which I was responding, was
>>>>>>> David Johnson saying:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Just true by definition. If it has no set of instructions for
>>>>>>>>>>>> making more then it doesn't match the definition of life.
>>>>> Paul, pretending to be an ostrich and burying your head in the sand to
>>>>> avoid replying to me does not mean all of the problems in your
>>>>> arguments disappear.
>>>>>> There is no "definition of life".
>>>>> Only if you are using your private "Paul S Person" definition of
>>>>> "definition." I know of absolutely nobody who agrees with you. There
>>>>> is certainly no single agreed upon definition of "life". There are
>>>>> many definitions of "life" out there. That is a feature of many, many
>>>>> thousands of English words, like "English" or "words" or even concrete
>>>>> things like "chair." People agree on the vast majority of uses of the
>>>>> word, but there is disagreement on the fringes.
>>>>>> There are several practical lists of
>>>>>> criteria to tell if something is "alive" or was "alive" at one time,
>>>>>> and in some cases the "something" is a group rather than an
>>>>>> individual, but those are not definitions of life; they are
>>>>>> field-guides to when we say that something is (or was) alive and are
>>>>>> tuned to a specific purpose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, I never gave my "definition of life". I did quote one from the
>>>>>> Internet, which had the advantage of only identifying things that were
>>>>>> alive as being alive (and not including things that only used to be
>>>>>> alive). The whole kurfluffle was set off by someone making the clearly
>>>>>> religious statement that any alien life we discover "has to have
>>>>>> genes".
>>>>> No, it only becomes religious if you have a definition of "life" that
>>>>> does not involve genetics. You do not, so I don't understand how you
>>>>> think you can even make that claim!
>>>>>
>>>>> If someone uses a very standard genetic definition of life (like
>>>>> perhaps the majority of scientists), then "has to have genes" is very
>>>>> clearly *not* religious; it's true by definition.
>>>>>> Which quickly became "has to have DNA, and it has to look
>>>>>> exactly like ours".
>>>>> Once again, a complete fabrication. That didn't happen at all.
>>>>> The original person you were arguing with even directly denied talking
>>>>> about DNA (and I certainly never did.)
>>>>>> We, of course, in fact do not know that alien life
>>>>>> will have DNA at all, never mind DNA like ours, or even that it will
>>>>>> have "genes", unless those are so loosely defined as to make it
>>>>>> possible to say that rocks (not alien rocks, mind you, terrestrial
>>>>>> rocks) have them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I /think/ the statement you cite may have applied to
>>>>>> self-reproducing robots (that is, to the question of whether robots
>>>>>> that build copies of themselves are "alive"), which opened another can
>>>>>> of worms, with one poster confusing "the Halting Problem" with "state
>>>>>> machine", leading to the assertion that self-reproducing robots are
>>>>>> impossible because of infinte regression.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I pointed out that any definition of "life" would be coming from
>>>>>> chemistry (which, I should have added, may well be rooted in physics),
>>>>>> we were referred to an article on vitalism, which appears to be what
>>>>>> you would expect from atheists who have lost faith in the ability of
>>>>>> Science to discover the answer but, not having God to rely on, must
>>>>>> now believe in ... something else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I should have been clearer: we do not have a defintion of "life".
>>>>>> If we ever do, with any luck, we will be able to build a life-detector
>>>>>> which, when pointed at anything will tell us whether or not it is
>>>>>> alive. Even if it looks like a rock.
>>>>> Again, nonsense. We have many definitions of "life", all of which are
>>>>> mostly consistent. Definitions are important; they are how we
>>>>> actually convey information to others.
>>>>>
>>>>> Too much of the modern discourse is occurring between folks who are
>>>>> convinced that they each have the one true definition of the word in
>>>>> question, not realizing that the definitions disagree. Words like
>>>>> "racism", "fascism", "woke", "insurrection", "crime", "democracy",
>>>>> "gun control", "free speech", etc are used constantly, but mean
>>>>> different things to different folks, often unknowingly. How can we
>>>>> solve problems when we don't even understand what others are saying?
>>>>
>>>> This is an SF group - we should exercise some imagination.
>>>>
>>>> I could very easily envisage a clearly 'living' entity that doesn't reproduce,
>>>> but is functionally immortal. One example would be the sentient ocean in
>>>> Lem's 'Solaris'.
>>>
>>> I consider reproduction to be an essential part when defining "life",
>>> so by my definition I would not consider them "life".
>>> Depending on the circumstances, I might call entities which are close
>>> to "life" but without collective reproduction, "pseudo-life" or
>>> "artificial-life" ("alife").
>>>
>>> What is your definition of life that doesn't require reproduction? Does
>>> it say that R. Daneel Olivaw or Multivac is alive (just to use Asimov)?
>>
>> I'd say that it has to:
>>
>> 1 React to the environment to maintain its integrity and continued existence.
>> 2 Repair at least minor damage.
>> 3 Attempt to extend its pattern into the available environment.
>>
>> Asmiov's laws are fictional, not practical, and written with plenty of ambiguity
>> to hang stories on. But I'll play along.
>>
>> 1 and 2 are 3rd law related. However, Daneel and Multivac fail on 3 (though
>> you could argue about 'The Last Question'.)
>
> I'm not sure how you can claim 3 is failed. Surely Daneel and Multivac
> took many steps throughout their existence to prolong civilization and
> the continued production of robots. Or if you need something more direct,
> do they suddenly become "alive" if they work on a clone of themselves?
>
>> 3 can be covered by reproduction, but there are other ways it can happen.
>> For example, a sterile Pando.
>>
>> https://www.americanforests.org/article/the-heaviest-organism-on-the-planet/
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)
>>
>> Pando is a clone forest of quaking aspen trees in Utah. Its a single
>> individual, all the trees spring from the roots of others and remain connected
>> underground.
>>
>> At the moment, Pando covers 106 acres, has 47,000 trunks, and weighs around
>> 6,600 tons - about 33x the weight of a blue whale.
>>
>> Pando is estimated to be several thousand years old, and some estimates go as
>> high as a million years.
>>
>> Now, here's the hypothetical: Suppose the original seed that Pando sprang from
>> had a mutation that made Pando's pollen sterile (Pando is male). It can't
>> reproduce, going against your rule.
>>
>> But it's a forest of quaking aspen, which grows, replacing lost parts, and reacts
>> to the seasons. It's maintained its integrity and grown for thousands of years.
>> It predates you, and will likely be around long after you're gone.
>>
>> Is Sterile Pando alive?
>
> Yes, by any of the reasonable definitions. It's a member of a
> population that is alive and reproduces (irregardless of others
> presently existing and itself reproducing) and it is not dead
> (maintaining metabolic functions as you say). I've said this
> approach a couple of times already.
>
> I think you are misunderstanding the emphasis on reproduction. It's
> not primarily about what will happen in the future; it's about what
> happened in the past - how this entity came into being.
>
Which runs into the problem of defining the very first instance of life
as it can't be the product of reproduction from/by a prior instance.

On 2023-11-18, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
> On 11/18/2023 11:41 AM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>> On 2023-11-18, pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:15:33 AM UTC-5, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>> On 2023-11-16, pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 9:48:37 AM UTC-5, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-11-15, Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 12:38:53 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>>>>>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 11:35:44?PM UTC-5, Kevrob wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 1:06:08?AM UTC-4, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [snip] {4th attempt. Trying in a new window}
>>>>>>>>>> So, a sterile person is dead?
>>>>>>>>> A queen bee is alive, but a drone or worker isn't?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A drone and queen can procreate, so they are alive, I guess.
>>>>>>>>> The worker is a...remote appendage? The non-procreating
>>>>>>>>> drones are doomed. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/Nw_cdqQHGA8 Doom!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The immediate predecessor, to which I was responding, was
>>>>>>>> David Johnson saying:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Just true by definition. If it has no set of instructions for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> making more then it doesn't match the definition of life.
>>>>>> Paul, pretending to be an ostrich and burying your head in the sand to
>>>>>> avoid replying to me does not mean all of the problems in your
>>>>>> arguments disappear.
>>>>>>> There is no "definition of life".
>>>>>> Only if you are using your private "Paul S Person" definition of
>>>>>> "definition." I know of absolutely nobody who agrees with you. There
>>>>>> is certainly no single agreed upon definition of "life". There are
>>>>>> many definitions of "life" out there. That is a feature of many, many
>>>>>> thousands of English words, like "English" or "words" or even concrete
>>>>>> things like "chair." People agree on the vast majority of uses of the
>>>>>> word, but there is disagreement on the fringes.
>>>>>>> There are several practical lists of
>>>>>>> criteria to tell if something is "alive" or was "alive" at one time,
>>>>>>> and in some cases the "something" is a group rather than an
>>>>>>> individual, but those are not definitions of life; they are
>>>>>>> field-guides to when we say that something is (or was) alive and are
>>>>>>> tuned to a specific purpose.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, I never gave my "definition of life". I did quote one from the
>>>>>>> Internet, which had the advantage of only identifying things that were
>>>>>>> alive as being alive (and not including things that only used to be
>>>>>>> alive). The whole kurfluffle was set off by someone making the clearly
>>>>>>> religious statement that any alien life we discover "has to have
>>>>>>> genes".
>>>>>> No, it only becomes religious if you have a definition of "life" that
>>>>>> does not involve genetics. You do not, so I don't understand how you
>>>>>> think you can even make that claim!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If someone uses a very standard genetic definition of life (like
>>>>>> perhaps the majority of scientists), then "has to have genes" is very
>>>>>> clearly *not* religious; it's true by definition.
>>>>>>> Which quickly became "has to have DNA, and it has to look
>>>>>>> exactly like ours".
>>>>>> Once again, a complete fabrication. That didn't happen at all.
>>>>>> The original person you were arguing with even directly denied talking
>>>>>> about DNA (and I certainly never did.)
>>>>>>> We, of course, in fact do not know that alien life
>>>>>>> will have DNA at all, never mind DNA like ours, or even that it will
>>>>>>> have "genes", unless those are so loosely defined as to make it
>>>>>>> possible to say that rocks (not alien rocks, mind you, terrestrial
>>>>>>> rocks) have them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I /think/ the statement you cite may have applied to
>>>>>>> self-reproducing robots (that is, to the question of whether robots
>>>>>>> that build copies of themselves are "alive"), which opened another can
>>>>>>> of worms, with one poster confusing "the Halting Problem" with "state
>>>>>>> machine", leading to the assertion that self-reproducing robots are
>>>>>>> impossible because of infinte regression.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I pointed out that any definition of "life" would be coming from
>>>>>>> chemistry (which, I should have added, may well be rooted in physics),
>>>>>>> we were referred to an article on vitalism, which appears to be what
>>>>>>> you would expect from atheists who have lost faith in the ability of
>>>>>>> Science to discover the answer but, not having God to rely on, must
>>>>>>> now believe in ... something else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I should have been clearer: we do not have a defintion of "life".
>>>>>>> If we ever do, with any luck, we will be able to build a life-detector
>>>>>>> which, when pointed at anything will tell us whether or not it is
>>>>>>> alive. Even if it looks like a rock.
>>>>>> Again, nonsense. We have many definitions of "life", all of which are
>>>>>> mostly consistent. Definitions are important; they are how we
>>>>>> actually convey information to others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Too much of the modern discourse is occurring between folks who are
>>>>>> convinced that they each have the one true definition of the word in
>>>>>> question, not realizing that the definitions disagree. Words like
>>>>>> "racism", "fascism", "woke", "insurrection", "crime", "democracy",
>>>>>> "gun control", "free speech", etc are used constantly, but mean
>>>>>> different things to different folks, often unknowingly. How can we
>>>>>> solve problems when we don't even understand what others are saying?
>>>>>
>>>>> This is an SF group - we should exercise some imagination.
>>>>>
>>>>> I could very easily envisage a clearly 'living' entity that doesn't reproduce,
>>>>> but is functionally immortal. One example would be the sentient ocean in
>>>>> Lem's 'Solaris'.
>>>>
>>>> I consider reproduction to be an essential part when defining "life",
>>>> so by my definition I would not consider them "life".
>>>> Depending on the circumstances, I might call entities which are close
>>>> to "life" but without collective reproduction, "pseudo-life" or
>>>> "artificial-life" ("alife").
>>>>
>>>> What is your definition of life that doesn't require reproduction? Does
>>>> it say that R. Daneel Olivaw or Multivac is alive (just to use Asimov)?
>>>
>>> I'd say that it has to:
>>>
>>> 1 React to the environment to maintain its integrity and continued existence.
>>> 2 Repair at least minor damage.
>>> 3 Attempt to extend its pattern into the available environment.
>>>
>>> Asmiov's laws are fictional, not practical, and written with plenty of ambiguity
>>> to hang stories on. But I'll play along.
>>>
>>> 1 and 2 are 3rd law related. However, Daneel and Multivac fail on 3 (though
>>> you could argue about 'The Last Question'.)
>>
>> I'm not sure how you can claim 3 is failed. Surely Daneel and Multivac
>> took many steps throughout their existence to prolong civilization and
>> the continued production of robots. Or if you need something more direct,
>> do they suddenly become "alive" if they work on a clone of themselves?
>>
>>> 3 can be covered by reproduction, but there are other ways it can happen.
>>> For example, a sterile Pando.
>>>
>>> https://www.americanforests.org/article/the-heaviest-organism-on-the-planet/
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)
>>>
>>> Pando is a clone forest of quaking aspen trees in Utah. Its a single
>>> individual, all the trees spring from the roots of others and remain connected
>>> underground.
>>>
>>> At the moment, Pando covers 106 acres, has 47,000 trunks, and weighs around
>>> 6,600 tons - about 33x the weight of a blue whale.
>>>
>>> Pando is estimated to be several thousand years old, and some estimates go as
>>> high as a million years.
>>>
>>> Now, here's the hypothetical: Suppose the original seed that Pando sprang from
>>> had a mutation that made Pando's pollen sterile (Pando is male). It can't
>>> reproduce, going against your rule.
>>>
>>> But it's a forest of quaking aspen, which grows, replacing lost parts, and reacts
>>> to the seasons. It's maintained its integrity and grown for thousands of years.
>>> It predates you, and will likely be around long after you're gone.
>>>
>>> Is Sterile Pando alive?
>>
>> Yes, by any of the reasonable definitions. It's a member of a
>> population that is alive and reproduces (irregardless of others
>> presently existing and itself reproducing) and it is not dead
>> (maintaining metabolic functions as you say). I've said this
>> approach a couple of times already.
>>
>> I think you are misunderstanding the emphasis on reproduction. It's
>> not primarily about what will happen in the future; it's about what
>> happened in the past - how this entity came into being.
>>
> Which runs into the problem of defining the very first instance of life
> as it can't be the product of reproduction from/by a prior instance.

On Thursday, 16 November 2023 at 16:09:19 UTC, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 9:48:37 AM UTC-5, Chris Buckley wrote:
> > On 2023-11-15, Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 12:38:53 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
> > ><pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 11:35:44?PM UTC-5, Kevrob wrote:
> > >>> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 1:06:08?AM UTC-4, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> [snip] {4th attempt. Trying in a new window}
> > >>> > So, a sterile person is dead?
> > >>> A queen bee is alive, but a drone or worker isn't?
> > >>>
> > >>> A drone and queen can procreate, so they are alive, I guess.
> > >>> The worker is a...remote appendage? The non-procreating
> > >>> drones are doomed. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!
> > >>>
> > >>> https://youtu.be/Nw_cdqQHGA8 Doom!
> > >>
> > >>The immediate predecessor, to which I was responding, was
> > >>David Johnson saying:
> > >>
> > >>> >>>> Nope. Just true by definition. If it has no set of instructions for
> > >>> >>>> making more then it doesn't match the definition of life.
> > Paul, pretending to be an ostrich and burying your head in the sand to
> > avoid replying to me does not mean all of the problems in your
> > arguments disappear.
> > > There is no "definition of life".
> > Only if you are using your private "Paul S Person" definition of
> > "definition." I know of absolutely nobody who agrees with you. There
> > is certainly no single agreed upon definition of "life". There are
> > many definitions of "life" out there. That is a feature of many, many
> > thousands of English words, like "English" or "words" or even concrete
> > things like "chair." People agree on the vast majority of uses of the
> > word, but there is disagreement on the fringes.
> > > There are several practical lists of
> > > criteria to tell if something is "alive" or was "alive" at one time,
> > > and in some cases the "something" is a group rather than an
> > > individual, but those are not definitions of life; they are
> > > field-guides to when we say that something is (or was) alive and are
> > > tuned to a specific purpose.
> > >
> > > BTW, I never gave my "definition of life". I did quote one from the
> > > Internet, which had the advantage of only identifying things that were
> > > alive as being alive (and not including things that only used to be
> > > alive). The whole kurfluffle was set off by someone making the clearly
> > > religious statement that any alien life we discover "has to have
> > > genes".
> > No, it only becomes religious if you have a definition of "life" that
> > does not involve genetics. You do not, so I don't understand how you
> > think you can even make that claim!
> >
> > If someone uses a very standard genetic definition of life (like
> > perhaps the majority of scientists), then "has to have genes" is very
> > clearly *not* religious; it's true by definition.
> > > Which quickly became "has to have DNA, and it has to look
> > > exactly like ours".
> > Once again, a complete fabrication. That didn't happen at all.
> > The original person you were arguing with even directly denied talking
> > about DNA (and I certainly never did.)
> > > We, of course, in fact do not know that alien life
> > > will have DNA at all, never mind DNA like ours, or even that it will
> > > have "genes", unless those are so loosely defined as to make it
> > > possible to say that rocks (not alien rocks, mind you, terrestrial
> > > rocks) have them.
> > >
> > > But I /think/ the statement you cite may have applied to
> > > self-reproducing robots (that is, to the question of whether robots
> > > that build copies of themselves are "alive"), which opened another can
> > > of worms, with one poster confusing "the Halting Problem" with "state
> > > machine", leading to the assertion that self-reproducing robots are
> > > impossible because of infinte regression.
> > >
> > > When I pointed out that any definition of "life" would be coming from
> > > chemistry (which, I should have added, may well be rooted in physics),
> > > we were referred to an article on vitalism, which appears to be what
> > > you would expect from atheists who have lost faith in the ability of
> > > Science to discover the answer but, not having God to rely on, must
> > > now believe in ... something else.
> > >
> > > But I should have been clearer: we do not have a defintion of "life".
> > > If we ever do, with any luck, we will be able to build a life-detector
> > > which, when pointed at anything will tell us whether or not it is
> > > alive. Even if it looks like a rock.
> > Again, nonsense. We have many definitions of "life", all of which are
> > mostly consistent. Definitions are important; they are how we
> > actually convey information to others.
> >
> > Too much of the modern discourse is occurring between folks who are
> > convinced that they each have the one true definition of the word in
> > question, not realizing that the definitions disagree. Words like
> > "racism", "fascism", "woke", "insurrection", "crime", "democracy",
> > "gun control", "free speech", etc are used constantly, but mean
> > different things to different folks, often unknowingly. How can we
> > solve problems when we don't even understand what others are saying?
> This is an SF group - we should exercise some imagination.
>
> I could very easily envisage a clearly 'living' entity that doesn't reproduce,
> but is functionally immortal. One example would be the sentient ocean in
> Lem's 'Solaris'.

You could take a bucketful of it. That often goes poorly.
I lost a reply which mentioned Star Trek episodes
"Home Soil" (Picard) and "Vox Sola" (Archer).

Solaris produces copies of people. Are the copies alive?
Are the copies pieces of Solaris?

James White's _Major Operation_ (1971) ends up
with Sector General characters meeting a planet of
living continents. This creature type has an immune
system of lesser critters with some independence.

Marvel Comics has "Ego the Living Planet".
Stories usually involve fighting /his/ antibodies.

On 19/11/2023 21.41, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 November 2023 at 16:09:19 UTC, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

>> This is an SF group - we should exercise some imagination.
>>
>> I could very easily envisage a clearly 'living' entity that doesn't reproduce,
>> but is functionally immortal. One example would be the sentient ocean in
>> Lem's 'Solaris'.
>
> You could take a bucketful of it. That often goes poorly.
> I lost a reply which mentioned Star Trek episodes
> "Home Soil" (Picard) and "Vox Sola" (Archer).
>
> Solaris produces copies of people. Are the copies alive?
> Are the copies pieces of Solaris?
>
> James White's _Major Operation_ (1971) ends up
> with Sector General characters meeting a planet of
> living continents. This creature type has an immune
> system of lesser critters with some independence.
>
> Marvel Comics has "Ego the Living Planet".
> Stories usually involve fighting /his/ antibodies.

In "The Piecemakers"[1], Retief and Magnan end up on a planet where
all life is one entity.

Something similar happens in "Green Patches"/"Misbegotten Missionary"[2].
If I recall correctly, a similar planet is visited in _Foundation and
Earth_[3], although portrayed in a positive light.

[1] <https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?54392>
[2] <https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?55216>
[3] <https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1905>
--
Michael F. Stemper
The FAQ for rec.arts.sf.written is at
<http://leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written.htm>
Please read it before posting.

On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 19:41:47 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, 16 November 2023 at 16:09:19 UTC, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 9:48:37?AM UTC-5, Chris Buckley wrote:
>> > On 2023-11-15, Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 12:38:53 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
>> > ><pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 11:35:44?PM UTC-5, Kevrob wrote:
>> > >>> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 1:06:08?AM UTC-4, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> [snip] {4th attempt. Trying in a new window}
>> > >>> > So, a sterile person is dead?
>> > >>> A queen bee is alive, but a drone or worker isn't?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> A drone and queen can procreate, so they are alive, I guess.
>> > >>> The worker is a...remote appendage? The non-procreating
>> > >>> drones are doomed. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!
>> > >>>
>> > >>> https://youtu.be/Nw_cdqQHGA8 Doom!
>> > >>
>> > >>The immediate predecessor, to which I was responding, was
>> > >>David Johnson saying:
>> > >>
>> > >>> >>>> Nope. Just true by definition. If it has no set of instructions for
>> > >>> >>>> making more then it doesn't match the definition of life.
>> > Paul, pretending to be an ostrich and burying your head in the sand to
>> > avoid replying to me does not mean all of the problems in your
>> > arguments disappear.
>> > > There is no "definition of life".
>> > Only if you are using your private "Paul S Person" definition of
>> > "definition." I know of absolutely nobody who agrees with you. There
>> > is certainly no single agreed upon definition of "life". There are
>> > many definitions of "life" out there. That is a feature of many, many
>> > thousands of English words, like "English" or "words" or even concrete
>> > things like "chair." People agree on the vast majority of uses of the
>> > word, but there is disagreement on the fringes.
>> > > There are several practical lists of
>> > > criteria to tell if something is "alive" or was "alive" at one time,
>> > > and in some cases the "something" is a group rather than an
>> > > individual, but those are not definitions of life; they are
>> > > field-guides to when we say that something is (or was) alive and are
>> > > tuned to a specific purpose.
>> > >
>> > > BTW, I never gave my "definition of life". I did quote one from the
>> > > Internet, which had the advantage of only identifying things that were
>> > > alive as being alive (and not including things that only used to be
>> > > alive). The whole kurfluffle was set off by someone making the clearly
>> > > religious statement that any alien life we discover "has to have
>> > > genes".
>> > No, it only becomes religious if you have a definition of "life" that
>> > does not involve genetics. You do not, so I don't understand how you
>> > think you can even make that claim!
>> >
>> > If someone uses a very standard genetic definition of life (like
>> > perhaps the majority of scientists), then "has to have genes" is very
>> > clearly *not* religious; it's true by definition.
>> > > Which quickly became "has to have DNA, and it has to look
>> > > exactly like ours".
>> > Once again, a complete fabrication. That didn't happen at all.
>> > The original person you were arguing with even directly denied talking
>> > about DNA (and I certainly never did.)
>> > > We, of course, in fact do not know that alien life
>> > > will have DNA at all, never mind DNA like ours, or even that it will
>> > > have "genes", unless those are so loosely defined as to make it
>> > > possible to say that rocks (not alien rocks, mind you, terrestrial
>> > > rocks) have them.
>> > >
>> > > But I /think/ the statement you cite may have applied to
>> > > self-reproducing robots (that is, to the question of whether robots
>> > > that build copies of themselves are "alive"), which opened another can
>> > > of worms, with one poster confusing "the Halting Problem" with "state
>> > > machine", leading to the assertion that self-reproducing robots are
>> > > impossible because of infinte regression.
>> > >
>> > > When I pointed out that any definition of "life" would be coming from
>> > > chemistry (which, I should have added, may well be rooted in physics),
>> > > we were referred to an article on vitalism, which appears to be what
>> > > you would expect from atheists who have lost faith in the ability of
>> > > Science to discover the answer but, not having God to rely on, must
>> > > now believe in ... something else.
>> > >
>> > > But I should have been clearer: we do not have a defintion of "life".
>> > > If we ever do, with any luck, we will be able to build a life-detector
>> > > which, when pointed at anything will tell us whether or not it is
>> > > alive. Even if it looks like a rock.
>> > Again, nonsense. We have many definitions of "life", all of which are
>> > mostly consistent. Definitions are important; they are how we
>> > actually convey information to others.
>> >
>> > Too much of the modern discourse is occurring between folks who are
>> > convinced that they each have the one true definition of the word in
>> > question, not realizing that the definitions disagree. Words like
>> > "racism", "fascism", "woke", "insurrection", "crime", "democracy",
>> > "gun control", "free speech", etc are used constantly, but mean
>> > different things to different folks, often unknowingly. How can we
>> > solve problems when we don't even understand what others are saying?
>> This is an SF group - we should exercise some imagination.
>>
>> I could very easily envisage a clearly 'living' entity that doesn't reproduce,
>> but is functionally immortal. One example would be the sentient ocean in
>> Lem's 'Solaris'.
>
>You could take a bucketful of it. That often goes poorly.
>I lost a reply which mentioned Star Trek episodes
>"Home Soil" (Picard) and "Vox Sola" (Archer).
>
>Solaris produces copies of people. Are the copies alive?
>Are the copies pieces of Solaris?

Hard to say. I rented the original once, in a two-VHS-tape set. I
didn't bother with the remake.

>James White's _Major Operation_ (1971) ends up
>with Sector General characters meeting a planet of
>living continents. This creature type has an immune
>system of lesser critters with some independence.
>
>Marvel Comics has "Ego the Living Planet".
>Stories usually involve fighting /his/ antibodies.

You are entering a conversation with a participant so fanatical (how
fanatical is he?) so fanatical that he responded to a /summary of a
prior discussion/ as if that were something to argue about (not it's
accuracy, mind you, but it's content -- that is, as if it were a
resumption of the discussion instead of a summary of it).

That said, the illustrations that SF can endure a vision of life not
bound by his definition is quite interesting. Of course, his
definition is a definition of "what we are willing to call 'alive'"
rather than a definition of "life", but since nobody has a definition
of "life", that is understandable.

The DCAU film /Green Lantern: Emerald Knights/ includes a planet which
is a Green Lantern, suggesting that it is alive.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Monday, 20 November 2023 at 17:10:55 UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 19:41:47 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, 16 November 2023 at 16:09:19 UTC, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> I could very easily envisage a clearly 'living' entity that doesn't reproduce,
> >> but is functionally immortal. One example would be the sentient ocean in
> >> Lem's 'Solaris'.
> >
> >You could take a bucketful of it. That often goes poorly.
> >I lost a reply which mentioned Star Trek episodes
> >"Home Soil" (Picard) and "Vox Sola" (Archer).
> >
> >Solaris produces copies of people. Are the copies alive?
> >Are the copies pieces of Solaris?
> Hard to say. I rented the original once, in a two-VHS-tape set. I
> didn't bother with the remake.
> >James White's _Major Operation_ (1971) ends up
> >with Sector General characters meeting a planet of
> >living continents. This creature type has an immune
> >system of lesser critters with some independence.
> >
> >Marvel Comics has "Ego the Living Planet".
> >Stories usually involve fighting /his/ antibodies.
> You are entering a conversation with a participant so fanatical (how
> fanatical is he?) so fanatical that he responded to a /summary of a
> prior discussion/ as if that were something to argue about (not it's
> accuracy, mind you, but it's content -- that is, as if it were a
> resumption of the discussion instead of a summary of it).
>
> That said, the illustrations that SF can endure a vision of life not
> bound by his definition is quite interesting. Of course, his
> definition is a definition of "what we are willing to call 'alive'"
> rather than a definition of "life", but since nobody has a definition
> of "life", that is understandable.
>
> The DCAU film /Green Lantern: Emerald Knights/ includes a planet which
> is a Green Lantern, suggesting that it is alive.

Oh yes, I overlooked Mogo. ;-) Who first appears
in one of a set of implausible tales by Alan Moore,
with a narrator of doubtful reliability.
A proud hunter or fighter lands on the planet
because he wants the glory of challenging a
Green Lantern, I think. After running around
shooting guns for a while - probably - he is shown
the problem of scale that he is confronting.

Later on, Mogo is played straight and not as a joke.

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 1:47:21 PM UTC-5, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Monday, 20 November 2023 at 17:10:55 UTC, Paul S Person wrote:

[snip]

> > The DCAU film /Green Lantern: Emerald Knights/ includes a planet which
> > is a Green Lantern, suggesting that it is alive.
> Oh yes, I overlooked Mogo. ;-) Who first appears
> in one of a set of implausible tales by Alan Moore,
> with a narrator of doubtful reliability.
> A proud hunter or fighter lands on the planet
> because he wants the glory of challenging a
> Green Lantern, I think. After running around
> shooting guns for a while - probably - he is shown
> the problem of scale that he is confronting.
>
> Later on, Mogo is played straight and not as a joke.

https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Green_Lantern_Vol_2_188

--
Kevin R

On 2023-11-20, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 19:41:47 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
><rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thursday, 16 November 2023 at 16:09:19 UTC, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 9:48:37?AM UTC-5, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>> > On 2023-11-15, Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>> > > On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 12:38:53 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>> > ><pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >>On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 11:35:44?PM UTC-5, Kevrob wrote:
>>> > >>> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 1:06:08?AM UTC-4, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> [snip] {4th attempt. Trying in a new window}
>>> > >>> > So, a sterile person is dead?
>>> > >>> A queen bee is alive, but a drone or worker isn't?
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> A drone and queen can procreate, so they are alive, I guess.
>>> > >>> The worker is a...remote appendage? The non-procreating
>>> > >>> drones are doomed. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> https://youtu.be/Nw_cdqQHGA8 Doom!
>>> > >>
>>> > >>The immediate predecessor, to which I was responding, was
>>> > >>David Johnson saying:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> >>>> Nope. Just true by definition. If it has no set of instructions for
>>> > >>> >>>> making more then it doesn't match the definition of life.
>>> > Paul, pretending to be an ostrich and burying your head in the sand to
>>> > avoid replying to me does not mean all of the problems in your
>>> > arguments disappear.
>>> > > There is no "definition of life".
>>> > Only if you are using your private "Paul S Person" definition of
>>> > "definition." I know of absolutely nobody who agrees with you. There
>>> > is certainly no single agreed upon definition of "life". There are
>>> > many definitions of "life" out there. That is a feature of many, many
>>> > thousands of English words, like "English" or "words" or even concrete
>>> > things like "chair." People agree on the vast majority of uses of the
>>> > word, but there is disagreement on the fringes.
>>> > > There are several practical lists of
>>> > > criteria to tell if something is "alive" or was "alive" at one time,
>>> > > and in some cases the "something" is a group rather than an
>>> > > individual, but those are not definitions of life; they are
>>> > > field-guides to when we say that something is (or was) alive and are
>>> > > tuned to a specific purpose.
>>> > >
>>> > > BTW, I never gave my "definition of life". I did quote one from the
>>> > > Internet, which had the advantage of only identifying things that were
>>> > > alive as being alive (and not including things that only used to be
>>> > > alive). The whole kurfluffle was set off by someone making the clearly
>>> > > religious statement that any alien life we discover "has to have
>>> > > genes".
>>> > No, it only becomes religious if you have a definition of "life" that
>>> > does not involve genetics. You do not, so I don't understand how you
>>> > think you can even make that claim!
>>> >
>>> > If someone uses a very standard genetic definition of life (like
>>> > perhaps the majority of scientists), then "has to have genes" is very
>>> > clearly *not* religious; it's true by definition.
>>> > > Which quickly became "has to have DNA, and it has to look
>>> > > exactly like ours".
>>> > Once again, a complete fabrication. That didn't happen at all.
>>> > The original person you were arguing with even directly denied talking
>>> > about DNA (and I certainly never did.)
>>> > > We, of course, in fact do not know that alien life
>>> > > will have DNA at all, never mind DNA like ours, or even that it will
>>> > > have "genes", unless those are so loosely defined as to make it
>>> > > possible to say that rocks (not alien rocks, mind you, terrestrial
>>> > > rocks) have them.
>>> > >
>>> > > But I /think/ the statement you cite may have applied to
>>> > > self-reproducing robots (that is, to the question of whether robots
>>> > > that build copies of themselves are "alive"), which opened another can
>>> > > of worms, with one poster confusing "the Halting Problem" with "state
>>> > > machine", leading to the assertion that self-reproducing robots are
>>> > > impossible because of infinte regression.
>>> > >
>>> > > When I pointed out that any definition of "life" would be coming from
>>> > > chemistry (which, I should have added, may well be rooted in physics),
>>> > > we were referred to an article on vitalism, which appears to be what
>>> > > you would expect from atheists who have lost faith in the ability of
>>> > > Science to discover the answer but, not having God to rely on, must
>>> > > now believe in ... something else.
>>> > >
>>> > > But I should have been clearer: we do not have a defintion of "life".
>>> > > If we ever do, with any luck, we will be able to build a life-detector
>>> > > which, when pointed at anything will tell us whether or not it is
>>> > > alive. Even if it looks like a rock.
>>> > Again, nonsense. We have many definitions of "life", all of which are
>>> > mostly consistent. Definitions are important; they are how we
>>> > actually convey information to others.
>>> >
>>> > Too much of the modern discourse is occurring between folks who are
>>> > convinced that they each have the one true definition of the word in
>>> > question, not realizing that the definitions disagree. Words like
>>> > "racism", "fascism", "woke", "insurrection", "crime", "democracy",
>>> > "gun control", "free speech", etc are used constantly, but mean
>>> > different things to different folks, often unknowingly. How can we
>>> > solve problems when we don't even understand what others are saying?
>>> This is an SF group - we should exercise some imagination.
>>>
>>> I could very easily envisage a clearly 'living' entity that doesn't reproduce,
>>> but is functionally immortal. One example would be the sentient ocean in
>>> Lem's 'Solaris'.
>>
>>You could take a bucketful of it. That often goes poorly.
>>I lost a reply which mentioned Star Trek episodes
>>"Home Soil" (Picard) and "Vox Sola" (Archer).
>>
>>Solaris produces copies of people. Are the copies alive?
>>Are the copies pieces of Solaris?
>
> Hard to say. I rented the original once, in a two-VHS-tape set. I
> didn't bother with the remake.
>
>>James White's _Major Operation_ (1971) ends up
>>with Sector General characters meeting a planet of
>>living continents. This creature type has an immune
>>system of lesser critters with some independence.
>>
>>Marvel Comics has "Ego the Living Planet".
>>Stories usually involve fighting /his/ antibodies.

My apolgies to the rest of you; Paul's ostrich approach with his insults
and blatant falsehoods means there's not a separate, easily ignorable
sub-thread for you, as he mixes his comments about me with his on-topic
answers. I see no easy answer. Suggestions? (Please continue to
strip out this side-discussion from the on-topic portion; that helps a
bit).

>
> You are entering a conversation with a participant so fanatical (how
> fanatical is he?) so fanatical that he responded to a /summary of a
> prior discussion/ as if that were something to argue about (not it's
> accuracy,

On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 10:47:18 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Monday, 20 November 2023 at 17:10:55 UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 19:41:47 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, 16 November 2023 at 16:09:19 UTC, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> I could very easily envisage a clearly 'living' entity that doesn't reproduce,
>> >> but is functionally immortal. One example would be the sentient ocean in
>> >> Lem's 'Solaris'.
>> >
>> >You could take a bucketful of it. That often goes poorly.
>> >I lost a reply which mentioned Star Trek episodes
>> >"Home Soil" (Picard) and "Vox Sola" (Archer).
>> >
>> >Solaris produces copies of people. Are the copies alive?
>> >Are the copies pieces of Solaris?
>> Hard to say. I rented the original once, in a two-VHS-tape set. I
>> didn't bother with the remake.
>> >James White's _Major Operation_ (1971) ends up
>> >with Sector General characters meeting a planet of
>> >living continents. This creature type has an immune
>> >system of lesser critters with some independence.
>> >
>> >Marvel Comics has "Ego the Living Planet".
>> >Stories usually involve fighting /his/ antibodies.
>> You are entering a conversation with a participant so fanatical (how
>> fanatical is he?) so fanatical that he responded to a /summary of a
>> prior discussion/ as if that were something to argue about (not it's
>> accuracy, mind you, but it's content -- that is, as if it were a
>> resumption of the discussion instead of a summary of it).
>>
>> That said, the illustrations that SF can endure a vision of life not
>> bound by his definition is quite interesting. Of course, his
>> definition is a definition of "what we are willing to call 'alive'"
>> rather than a definition of "life", but since nobody has a definition
>> of "life", that is understandable.
>>
>> The DCAU film /Green Lantern: Emerald Knights/ includes a planet which
>> is a Green Lantern, suggesting that it is alive.
>
>Oh yes, I overlooked Mogo. ;-) Who first appears
>in one of a set of implausible tales by Alan Moore,
>with a narrator of doubtful reliability.
>A proud hunter or fighter lands on the planet
>because he wants the glory of challenging a
>Green Lantern, I think. After running around
>shooting guns for a while - probably - he is shown
>the problem of scale that he is confronting.
>
>Later on, Mogo is played straight and not as a joke.

Which is what the film shows. Certainly the first part, and he does
show up to help with a very sticky problem at the end.

The film, BTW, is an anthology of six such stories, all featuring
famous Green Lanterns, all based on stories from the comic books. I
don't generally like anthology films, but I found this one watchable
and Mogo unforgettable.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"