What does it mean to be "alive?"

[WeedsportMoose]

Some background first:

Recently I've been replaying Mass Effects 1-3 with all the dlc to get as much out of the story as possible before I put it down for a while. I've been watching some discussions about Mass Effect 3's ending and I came across someone who said the Geth didn't have souls so what happens to them doesn't matter and it got me thinking about what it actually means to be alive.

Actual question/discussion topic:

What does it mean to be alive? Certainly a soul could be a criteria but do souls even actually exist in all organic beings? I don't see why just humans would be the only animals with souls. This would also mean that trees have souls but the problem I have is that trees aren't intelligent, they can't think for themselves like the Geth can (the Geth are highly intelligent AI beings for anyone who doesn't know the Mass Effect Lore). If something can think and make logical descions such as self preservation, shouldn't it be considered alive? Even if the being was synthetically created?

I guess what I'm trying to ask is even if something wasnt naturally created, as long as it can logically think and preserve itself shouldn't it be considered alive? Even without a "soul?" I'm just curious about the community's idea of being alive.

 

[The_Scrivener]

This is a really interesting developing sector of Ethics Studies. I met a professor in college who specialized in relative Ethics contextual to technology and the development of societies.

At any rate, I'm more of a survivalist-thinker. I understand emotional attachment and the importance of human connection and that we're fortunate enough to have evolved to a place where we understand things in a much more profound way, but it all comes down to self-preservation of whatever you think your tribe is. Family, lover, friends, dogs, whatever. I think the soul argument is a religious projection that really doesn't have any value in terms of authentic scientific dissection of the subject.

In other words, the humans matter in ME3 and not the synthetics because the audience is human and not synthetic. Hard to say how the game consoles we're playing these games on feel however.

 

[veloper]

Sounds more like the question you really wanted to ask is when personhood applies.

Insects can be seen as simple robots, only organic. Without self-awereness. Nobody cares if you step on an ant. The creature is alive but of little value. We don't really care if something is organic or living.

So souls. A soul basicly just means a mind. In most religions, animals have souls, just no spirit.
In the end all that may matter is merely the cuteness factor of the creature or it's ability to defend itself. Aliens and sentient robots beware

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

Soul =/= intellect. There's a set of beliefs saying that yes, even trees and plants have souls, although they're not individual souls like for humans and animals, they're group souls (i.e. one soul for, say, 4 or 5 trees, something like that).

As for the Geth, the philosophy of "I think therefore I am" definitely applies there. They've even evolved, since they're different than they were when they were made, so I really don't see how you could think otherwise.

 

[The_Lost_King]

Are we talking like philosophical or actual scientific, you are alive? I will answer both.

Science:
1. You have to be able to produce offspring and so do those offspring(Ligers are not alive because they cannot produce offspring).
2. You must be able to grow
3. You must be made up of cells
4. You must require energy
5. You must respond to the environment

The geth are not alive because of 1, 2, 3, and maybe 5

Philosophical:
I really don't know. Frankly I think the scientific one should be the goto one. I believe those are the criteria for being alive. The geth are not alive, they are sentient machines. They run on a code, a very complex one granted but still a code, that somehow strengthens the more Geth you put together. They are not alive.

Now the whole souls thing, well I don't know what to say to that. I'm somewhat religious and I believe we have souls. However, I don't think you need to have a soul to be considered alive.

 

[krazykidd]

Are we talking like philosophical or actual scientific, you are alive? I will answer both.

Science:
1. You have to be able to produce offspring and so do those offspring(Ligers are not alive because they cannot produce offspring).
2. You must be able to grow
3. You must be made up of cells
4. You must require energy
5. You must respond to the environment

The geth are not alive because of 1, 2, 3, and maybe 5

Philosophical:
I really don't know. Frankly I think the scientific one should be the goto one. I believe those are the criteria for being alive. The geth are not alive, they are sentient machines. They run on a code, a very complex one granted but still a code, that somehow strengthens the more Geth you put together. They are not alive.

Now the whole souls thing, well I don't know what to say to that. I'm somewhat religious and I believe we have souls. However, I don't think you need to have a soul to be considered alive.

That's interesting . I did not know any of that . So what would we call Liger if not " alive"? I'm genuinly curious . ( i'm half hoping you say undead).

 

[The_Lost_King]

Are we talking like philosophical or actual scientific, you are alive? I will answer both.

Science:
1. You have to be able to produce offspring and so do those offspring(Ligers are not alive because they cannot produce offspring).
2. You must be able to grow
3. You must be made up of cells
4. You must require energy
5. You must respond to the environment

The geth are not alive because of 1, 2, 3, and maybe 5

Philosophical:
I really don't know. Frankly I think the scientific one should be the goto one. I believe those are the criteria for being alive. The geth are not alive, they are sentient machines. They run on a code, a very complex one granted but still a code, that somehow strengthens the more Geth you put together. They are not alive.

Now the whole souls thing, well I don't know what to say to that. I'm somewhat religious and I believe we have souls. However, I don't think you need to have a soul to be considered alive.

That's interesting . I did not know any of that . So what would we call Liger if not " alive"? I'm genuinly curious . ( i'm half hoping you say undead).

They are probably just classified as non-living . Though, now I kind of want to ask Mr. Robinson. Now I wonder if an increase in the Liger population would be an abiotic factor instead of a biotic one, hmmm. Science is so interesting. Sorry to disapoint you on the calling them undead front.

 

[Gatx]

I don't like to get bogged down in semantics and technicalities - if it's sentient and aware, it's tragic if it's "killed" or if you don't count them as "alive," if it's existence is ended.

Are we talking like philosophical or actual scientific, you are alive? I will answer both.

Science:
1. You have to be able to produce offspring and so do those offspring(Ligers are not alive because they cannot produce offspring).

That is a ridiculous criteria. Does that mean people who are sterile aren't "alive?"

 

[Fractral]

Science:
1. You have to be able to produce offspring and so do those offspring(Ligers are not alive because they cannot produce offspring).

I'm curious- what would you call someone who has lost their genitals, or is otherwise unable to have children? Would you change it to 'could initially produce children' or something like that?
OT: Anything capable of claiming that it is alive is definitely alive. I'm really not a biologist, so I couldn't say further about cells and stuff.

 

[Phlakes]

Required viewing for this thread-


And maybe the rest of the series too.

TL;DW the three criteria it brings up are intelligence, self-awareness, and consciousness.

 

[The_Lost_King]

I don't like to get bogged down in semantics and technicalities - if it's sentient and aware, it's tragic if it's "killed" or if you don't count them as "alive," if it's existence is ended.

Are we talking like philosophical or actual scientific, you are alive? I will answer both.

Science:
1. You have to be able to produce offspring and so do those offspring(Ligers are not alive because they cannot produce offspring).

That is a ridiculous criteria. Does that mean people who are sterile aren't "alive?"

Well, that is the criteria. I would think they would be considered alive because they are part of a species that can reproduce. They have just has circumstances happen to them where they can't.

Science:
1. You have to be able to produce offspring and so do those offspring(Ligers are not alive because they cannot produce offspring).

I'm curious- what would you call someone who has lost their genitals, or is otherwise unable to have children? Would you change it to 'could initially produce children' or something like that?
OT: Anything capable of claiming that it is alive is definitely alive. I'm really not a biologist, so I couldn't say further about cells and stuff.

I am pretty sure this definition is talking about the species as a whole and does not account for stuff like sterility and eunuchs.

 

[NightmareExpress]

Ligers and Mules are alive, but they are a singular instance of life.
They will advance no further than they are (meaning of course, that they aren't capable of procreation), but they were naturally created to begin with and most definitely fulfill the rest of that criteria. Needless to say, I think that definition of life (the other four being perfectly good) is preposterous, ludicrous, ridiculous and utterly silly.

Now I implore you to go outside and tell a whole bunch of blokes who got the snip that they are non-living or "were at one point alive but no longer" and see the reactions that it gets you. I'm fairly certain that the ability to produce offspring is more of an ideal to have a continuing population and, as a species, survive than it is parameters of being necessarily "alive".

Whether or not sentient robots are "alive" is an arguable point to make on either side.
Because that's pretty much what we are anyway, and we have no problem saying that we (humans) are "alive" and possessing of "a soul". What becomes of us if we manage to find ways to be transferred to a digital form? Do we all of a sudden manage to become "not alive" or would we have simply found a different way to be?

It's a very interesting thing.
For the philosophical side, I think sentience is achieved from being able to question on a subjective and objective basis alongside being able to feel distinct sensations. If there exists a learning AI that manages to do that, then it might as well be "alive" enough to me.

 

[Bobic]

1. You have to be able to produce offspring and so do those offspring(Ligers are not alive because they cannot produce offspring).

I'm sorry, but that just seems daft, if a Liger doesn't fit the criteria for being alive, that doesn't tell me the Liger isn't alive, that tells me the criteria need to be changed. And what of people that either never had, or lost the ability to breed? Are you telling me a guy with a vasectomy isn't alive? That is a seriously stupid definition.

As for the actual topic, the way I see it, if it's sentient, and has some modicum of intelligence and thought, then it deserves rights.

I don't like involving souls in the discussion as I don't believe in them, they are not demonstrable, so saying that some things have them and some things don't is baseless, unfair, and will likely be used as an excuse to murder when the great robot wars begin. I will not be a part of it.

 

[PeterMerkin69]

The question is flawed. It's an artifact of an era of material ignorance and assumes the big Something Moar. Apparently we don't need Zeus to explain thunderstorms and bastards anymore but we can't seem to let go of the notion that we're special, that we're here for some great purpose, that we're important. "Life" probably arises on the same continuum and in the same way as any other natural phenomenon, from crystals to fusion, and there's nothing more to it than that. Organic computers just happened to come to be in way that's not entirely different from how gas coalesces into stars and planets or soap scum gathers into clumps while circling around your drain then, because they're pretty dumb, started thinking everything else was just like they are. If you look at it like that, a person, a computer and a rock aren't so different after all. They got here the same way, they just represent different points along a shared evolutionary timeline.

If you want to give our particular range of self awareness/agency/self replication its own name that's fine, but it doesn't automatically bestow anything Moar onto it. Other than the fact that we're in it. And we think that's great. because we're idiots.

I don't think you can download a person onto a computer, by the way. You'd be copying it. But don't let that hold you back, your body's already doing that for you. You're more of a nebulous cloud of information than a permanent entity. Even a pebble's got that one over on you. But you, your cells, the electrical activity that constitute your thoughts, are just arrangements that come together and then dissipate just as quickly.

Artificial intelligence isn't necessarily lesser intelligence or "fake," which I get the impression that a lot of people think when they talk about it. It's just man made rather than something that happened without apparent intent.

rocks/turnips/cattle/people

 

[Wyvern65]

Are you telling me a guy with a hysterectomy isn't alive? That is a seriously stupid definition.

I can absolutely 100% guarantee that a "guy with a hysterectomy" isn't alive because it's definitionally impossible.

(Hint: Look up hysterectomy.)

Sorry, that was too good to resist.

Other than that I agree with you.

 

[The_Lost_King]

1. You have to be able to produce offspring and so do those offspring(Ligers are not alive because they cannot produce offspring).

I'm sorry, but that just seems daft, if a Liger doesn't fit the criteria for being alive, that doesn't tell me the Liger isn't alive, that tells me the criteria need to be changed. And what of people that either never had, or lost the ability to breed? Are you telling me a guy with a hysterectomy isn't alive? That is a seriously stupid definition.

As for the actual topic, the way I see it, if it's sentient, and has some modicum of intelligence and thought, then it deserves rights.

I don't like involving souls in the discussion as I don't believe in them, they are not demonstrable, so saying that some things have them and some things don't is baseless, unfair, and will likely be used as an excuse to murder when the great robot wars begin. I will not be a part of it.

no, no, it tells you the liger isn't alive. as to your sterility, I am not repeating myself again.

I don't like to get bogged down in semantics and technicalities - if it's sentient and aware, it's tragic if it's "killed" or if you don't count them as "alive," if it's existence is ended.

Are we talking like philosophical or actual scientific, you are alive? I will answer both.

Science:
1. You have to be able to produce offspring and so do those offspring(Ligers are not alive because they cannot produce offspring).

That is a ridiculous criteria. Does that mean people who are sterile aren't "alive?"

Well, that is the criteria. I would think they would be considered alive because they are part of a species that can reproduce. They have just has circumstances happen to them where they can't.

Science:
1. You have to be able to produce offspring and so do those offspring(Ligers are not alive because they cannot produce offspring).

I'm curious- what would you call someone who has lost their genitals, or is otherwise unable to have children? Would you change it to 'could initially produce children' or something like that?
OT: Anything capable of claiming that it is alive is definitely alive. I'm really not a biologist, so I couldn't say further about cells and stuff.

I am pretty sure this definition is talking about the species as a whole and does not account for stuff like sterility and eunuchs.

 

[Bobic]

Are you telling me a guy with a hysterectomy isn't alive? That is a seriously stupid definition.

I can absolutely 100% guarantee that a "guy with a hysterectomy" isn't alive because it's definitionally impossible.

(Hint: Look up hysterectomy.) Sorry, that was too good to resist.

Other than that I agree with you.

Shit, don't even need to look it up, vasectomy. Stupid brainfart. Oh well, thanks for letting me know.

 

[Bobic]

1. You have to be able to produce offspring and so do those offspring(Ligers are not alive because they cannot produce offspring).

I'm sorry, but that just seems daft, if a Liger doesn't fit the criteria for being alive, that doesn't tell me the Liger isn't alive, that tells me the criteria need to be changed. And what of people that either never had, or lost the ability to breed? Are you telling me a guy with a hysterectomy isn't alive? That is a seriously stupid definition.

As for the actual topic, the way I see it, if it's sentient, and has some modicum of intelligence and thought, then it deserves rights.

I don't like involving souls in the discussion as I don't believe in them, they are not demonstrable, so saying that some things have them and some things don't is baseless, unfair, and will likely be used as an excuse to murder when the great robot wars begin. I will not be a part of it.

no, no, it tells you the liger isn't alive. as to your sterility, I am not repeating myself again.

It tells me what I say it tells me, you don't decide for me. And science isn't infallible. Tongue maps were being taught in biology when I went to school, you know, this thing.

Spoiler

and they were easily disproven by tipping sugar on various places on the tongue. Still it was taught in schools for decades though. And this living example isn't even a 100% science issue, you could easily call it a philosophical discussion. So no, it doesn't tell me the liger is not alive, it tells me the definition needs changing.

(sorry for the vasectomy point though, didn't realise you'd already answered it).

 

[CrystalShadow]

Are we talking like philosophical or actual scientific, you are alive? I will answer both.

Science:
1. You have to be able to produce offspring and so do those offspring(Ligers are not alive because they cannot produce offspring).
2. You must be able to grow
3. You must be made up of cells
4. You must require energy
5. You must respond to the environment

I have to say, who devised those criteria?
I mean,

1. is self-evidently nonsensical.
2. isn't that bad, but a little odd as an actual requirement.
3. is incredibly dubious.
4. Given the rules of physics stating this explicitly is kind of pointless, but again, it also seems generally to be an unneeded criteria.
5. This seems like a critical one, given that almost all living things I can think of do it. Some non-living ones do as well, but it's still better than most.

So out of 5 that gives us one decent criteria, 2 that are OK, but not really that meaningful, and 2 that are either just plain stupid, or at the very least incredibly presumptuous.

So... Is a list like that scientific? Because if it is, I'm a little concerned about whoever came up with it, and, for that matter, anyone that would use such an incredibly bizarre and presumptuous set of criteria for any practical purpose...

 

[The_Lost_King]

1. You have to be able to produce offspring and so do those offspring(Ligers are not alive because they cannot produce offspring).

I'm sorry, but that just seems daft, if a Liger doesn't fit the criteria for being alive, that doesn't tell me the Liger isn't alive, that tells me the criteria need to be changed. And what of people that either never had, or lost the ability to breed? Are you telling me a guy with a hysterectomy isn't alive? That is a seriously stupid definition.

As for the actual topic, the way I see it, if it's sentient, and has some modicum of intelligence and thought, then it deserves rights.

I don't like involving souls in the discussion as I don't believe in them, they are not demonstrable, so saying that some things have them and some things don't is baseless, unfair, and will likely be used as an excuse to murder when the great robot wars begin. I will not be a part of it.

no, no, it tells you the liger isn't alive. as to your sterility, I am not repeating myself again.

It tells me what I say it tells me, you don't decide for me. And science isn't infallible. Tongue maps were being taught in biology when I went to school, you know, this thing.

Spoiler

and they were easily disproven by tipping sugar on various places on the tongue. Still it was taught in schools for decades though. And this living example isn't even a 100% science issue, you could easily call it a philosophical discussion. So no, it doesn't tell me the liger is not alive, it tells me the definition needs changing.

(sorry for the vasectomy point though, didn't realise you'd already answered it).

Your example is provably wrong though. The fact that reproduction is a criteria for being alive is not provably wrong. It is just something scientists go by. If you don't like it, fine don't go by it, but don't tell me it is completely wrong.

Are we talking like philosophical or actual scientific, you are alive? I will answer both.

Science:
1. You have to be able to produce offspring and so do those offspring(Ligers are not alive because they cannot produce offspring).
2. You must be able to grow
3. You must be made up of cells
4. You must require energy
5. You must respond to the environment

I have to say, who devised those criteria?
I mean,

1. is self-evidently nonsensical.
2. isn't that bad, but a little odd as an actual requirement.
3. is incredibly dubious.
4. Given the rules of physics stating this explicitly is kind of pointless, but again, it also seems generally to be an unneeded criteria.
5. This seems like a critical one, given that almost all living things I can think of do it. Some non-living ones do as well, but it's still better than most.

So out of 5 that gives us one decent criteria, 2 that are OK, but not really that meaningful, and 2 that are either just plain stupid, or at the very least incredibly presumptuous.

So... Is a list like that scientific? Because if it is, I'm a little concerned about whoever came up with it, and, for that matter, anyone that would use such an incredibly bizarre and presumptuous set of criteria for any practical purpose...

This is the list my biology teacher taught to me. I have no idea which scientist came up with this.