What does it mean to be "alive?"

[SinisterGehe]

Being alive is realising what problem intelligence grants to a being. Alive is being aware of your existence and how insignificant it really is. Because there is nothing a living being could EVER in this universe do that the massive forces that play on the cosmic stage, in which our galaxy, even our universe is just small and insignificant.
Living with that is living, because if you don't understand that - you do not live, you exist. Living is painful for the fact that it is insignificant, pointless and powerless state - nothing in it matters and when it ends there is nothing.
(And if there is afterlife, then that counts as the continuum of living, because it has not stopped yet... But this is not part of my philosophy)

 

[The Wykydtron]

Alive?

My heart's beating, mah hands a' shakin' but i'm STILL shooting, i'm STILL getting headshots!

*ahem*

Sorry, that just slipped out.... Old references are old.

Yo imma go Persona 3 on you and say anything with a heart qualifies. I can agree with that. I mean heart as in "soul" variety, not the organ. Before someone who (for some inexplicable reason) has not played Persona 3 misunderstands.

 

[Easton Dark]

It's different criteria for different types of creatures. I'll share my idea on what it means for humans and their equivalents to be alive, beings with intelligence that allow them to disregard or change their instincts, or in the Geth's case, their programming:

Having something to die for.

The Geth fight for their right to sentience. They're alive to me.

 

[bojackx]

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.

I still don't think it's correct to call creatures like Ligers and mules as not living. I don't think the 7 life processes are a reliable way to gauge whether something's alive (I'm pretty sure using that system that fire is just as alive as mules).

Wikipedia says it's just something that has "signalling and self-sustaining processes".

 

[veloper]

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.

I for one think it's a brilliant definition. It means your post-menopause mother-in-law isn't alive. Couldn't have killed her, she wasn't even alive in the first place.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

Well nobody has souls so the Geth not having them sorta doesn't make much sense. In a universe where they are literally partying and sleeping with Aliens I think the Bible isn't too credible in the world of Mass effect (I think Ashley was supposed to be religeous, but I don't know).

On the subject though; self presivation. When an entity assumes it has a purpose and a reason to be that it would take options to keep it being, unless it sought to be compassionate and use it's being for the preservation of others. Laymen terms, robot wants to take a bullet for their master because they want to, not because they have to.

just my thought on it though. Alternatively: 42.

 

[DoPo]

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

Instead of talking about sterility and shit, I'd rather talk about the Geth

1. Are we sure the Geth cannot reproduce? it seems pretty plausible they'd be able to spawn more processes and so on. They could even use something like genetic algorithms (or whatever the Quarians that is similar in function or result to GAs) to produce more Geth, thus you wouldn't be able to say "they are just cloning". So they probably cover #1
2. Do they not grow? Not physically, as they...aren't physical, but they do develop - get more information, which leads to them "growing" in a non-physical sense.
3. Clearly no.
4. Well, this is actually a bit fuzzy, as they don't themselves require energy, it's the hardware that does. They require the hardware to be powered, though.
5. They also do respond to the environment. Clearly seen from the first game - they shoot at Shepart if he/she's around - that constitutes of environmental change.

So they still fail but not as hard as you said.

 

[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.

I for one think it's a brilliant definition. It means your post-menopause mother-in-law isn't alive. Couldn't have killed her, she wasn't even alive in the first place.

For the love of... This is the 5th time I hve had to answer this.

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.

 

[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

Instead of talking about sterility and shit, I'd rather talk about the Geth

1. Are we sure the Geth cannot reproduce? it seems pretty plausible they'd be able to spawn more processes and so on. They could even use something like genetic algorithms (or whatever the Quarians that is similar in function or result to GAs) to produce more Geth, thus you wouldn't be able to say "they are just cloning". So they probably cover #1
2. Do they not grow? Not physically, as they...aren't physical, but they do develop - get more information, which leads to them "growing" in a non-physical sense.
3. Clearly no.
4. Well, this is actually a bit fuzzy, as they don't themselves require energy, it's the hardware that does. They require the hardware to be powered, though.
5. They also do respond to the environment. Clearly seen from the first game - they shoot at Shepart if he/she's around - that constitutes of environmental change.

So they still fail but not as hard as you said.

Thank you so much for not talking about the first criteria.
1. I really doubt the reproduce. They might build more of themselves, but I doubt they reproduce.
2. This definition is talking about physical growth though, or atleast I think it does.If it meant mental growth is a factor, then it would be you either have to mentally or physically grow, because there are living things that don't think or even have mentalities. So either of us could be right.
3. yeah
4. Well, we don't require energy our cells do so I still count that
5. I'm not entirely sure what it meant by respond to the environment, so that is why I put maybe 5.

 

[Waffle_Man]

It's not really intelligence and logic you seek,

for a flow chart could probably pass that critique.

Should anyone mention emotions like crying and laughter?

Then gives rights to the school speaker that sits in the rafters.

Do you want me to say in very few words?

Alright, let me see: A grasp of the absurd.

 

[Fractral]

snip

Haha, sorry you had to answer so many times. That was pretty much all I was wondering about, 'cause it seemed unfair to some people. But you rectified it.

 

[DoPo]

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

Instead of talking about sterility and shit, I'd rather talk about the Geth

1. Are we sure the Geth cannot reproduce? it seems pretty plausible they'd be able to spawn more processes and so on. They could even use something like genetic algorithms (or whatever the Quarians that is similar in function or result to GAs) to produce more Geth, thus you wouldn't be able to say "they are just cloning". So they probably cover #1
2. Do they not grow? Not physically, as they...aren't physical, but they do develop - get more information, which leads to them "growing" in a non-physical sense.
3. Clearly no.
4. Well, this is actually a bit fuzzy, as they don't themselves require energy, it's the hardware that does. They require the hardware to be powered, though.
5. They also do respond to the environment. Clearly seen from the first game - they shoot at Shepart if he/she's around - that constitutes of environmental change.

So they still fail but not as hard as you said.

Thank you so much for not talking about the first criteria.
1. I really doubt the reproduce. They might build more of themselves, but I doubt they reproduce.
2. This definition is talking about physical growth though, or atleast I think it does.If it meant mental growth is a factor, then it would be you either have to mentally or physically grow, because there are living things that don't think or even have mentalities. So either of us could be right.
3. yeah
4. Well, we don't require energy our cells do so I still count that
5. I'm not entirely sure what it meant by respond to the environment, so that is why I put maybe 5.

1. If they don't reproduce, there would be a finite amount of the Geth. And since we know they are at least subtly different even among themselves, that means new Geth are most likely not forks of old. Or even if they are, that is enough to make them a separate...erm, "being", I suppose. Otherwise, what is the difference between "reproducing" and "building more of themselves" that, say, snails or frogs cover but not the Geth?
2. Considering the Geth are entirely incorporeal...well, that complicates things. Maybe the thing we should be asking is - is a body/physical form required for one to be "alive"? That would also actually carry over to #3. And does building one satisfy this criteria? Because the Geth clearly can inhabit what would be called a body and that body could "grow". But while in software form, you could stretch the "body" as a concept to cover the Geth - they are data and by acquiring more they do grow in...well, "size". Also, they probably take up more hard drive space, too.

 

[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

Instead of talking about sterility and shit, I'd rather talk about the Geth

1. Are we sure the Geth cannot reproduce? it seems pretty plausible they'd be able to spawn more processes and so on. They could even use something like genetic algorithms (or whatever the Quarians that is similar in function or result to GAs) to produce more Geth, thus you wouldn't be able to say "they are just cloning". So they probably cover #1
2. Do they not grow? Not physically, as they...aren't physical, but they do develop - get more information, which leads to them "growing" in a non-physical sense.
3. Clearly no.
4. Well, this is actually a bit fuzzy, as they don't themselves require energy, it's the hardware that does. They require the hardware to be powered, though.
5. They also do respond to the environment. Clearly seen from the first game - they shoot at Shepart if he/she's around - that constitutes of environmental change.

So they still fail but not as hard as you said.

Thank you so much for not talking about the first criteria.
1. I really doubt the reproduce. They might build more of themselves, but I doubt they reproduce.
2. This definition is talking about physical growth though, or atleast I think it does.If it meant mental growth is a factor, then it would be you either have to mentally or physically grow, because there are living things that don't think or even have mentalities. So either of us could be right.
3. yeah
4. Well, we don't require energy our cells do so I still count that
5. I'm not entirely sure what it meant by respond to the environment, so that is why I put maybe 5.

1. If they don't reproduce, there would be a finite amount of the Geth. And since we know they are at least subtly different even among themselves, that means new Geth are most likely not forks of old. Or even if they are, that is enough to make them a separate...erm, "being", I suppose. Otherwise, what is the difference between "reproducing" and "building more of themselves" that, say, snails or frogs cover but not the Geth?
2. Considering the Geth are entirely incorporeal...well, that complicates things. Maybe the thing we should be asking is - is a body/physical form required for one to be "alive"? That would also actually carry over to #3. And does building one satisfy this criteria? Because the Geth clearly can inhabit what would be called a body and that body could "grow". But while in software form, you could stretch the "body" as a concept to cover the Geth - they are data and by acquiring more they do grow in...well, "size". Also, they probably take up more hard drive space, too.

I have absolutely no idea how to respond to this. I have just been staring at my screen trying to think of ways the respond and I can't. I guess you are right that they don't fail at being alive so badly.

 

[waj9876]

Anything that isn't an inanimate object, and also doesn't want to die. I guess.

 

[Pulse]

The reproduction aspect is just for classification of a species, not whether an individual is alive or not.

 

[TheUsername0131]

I guess what I'm trying to ask is even if something wasn?t naturally created, as long as it can logically think and preserve itself shouldn't it be considered alive?

Yes, yes it should.


They adopted an extremely isolationist and hostile ?shoot first? attitude because of questions like this. A whole machine uprising was involved in their origin story.

2. Considering the Geth are entirely incorporeal...well, that complicates things.

No it doesn?t.

Information is not abstract, it requires physical representation

Electrical Engineers design systems that have two main objectives:
1. To generate, distribute, store and convert energy between various forms
2. To gather, store, process, transport and present information
-Dr. Bahawodin Baha University of Brighton, UK


The Geth operate on a lossless computing substrate that is arguably more efficient then the electrochemical process utilised by human brains. Human memory is fallible, the Geth probably have enough error-correcting codes to put your current optical media storage to shame. Then again a networked intelligence would hopefully have error correcting measures.

Also, they probably take up more hard drive space, too.

That?s more like it!

7.3346*10^12 Geth modules per gram of whatever they?re using for digital storage.
It takes at least 1183 Geth programs to make what would constitute a person.
?the better to facilitate independent decision-making while separated from the Geth consensus for long periods of time.?
That?s about 6.2 billion ?people.? That?s space efficient!

?They find organic methods of communication, such as body language and spoken word, to be largely inefficient; the Geth are able to communicate their thoughts flawlessly without any fear of misinterpretation. Because of this they have no true form of government and no system of rank. When a matter must be decided upon, the Geth communicate all viewpoints of a situation and a consensus is made, the decision being whatever benefits the Geth as a whole the greatest.?

That arguably makes them more civilised, so long as they don?t discover and then implement smugness we shall be safe.

?According to Legion, geth do not actually live on any of the quarian planets they conquered, serving merely as caretakers for them instead. They find it more efficient to live on space stations and draw resources from asteroids, though they maintain mobile platforms on the worlds to clear rubble and toxins left by the Morning War.?

THEOSE SMUG BASTARDS!
They fix up the conquered planets? environment just to flip us off. There is no other reason why a species with a lack of aesthetic sensibilities and preferences beyond practicality should restore real estate to pristine condition.

THOSE ETHICAL BASTARDS!
?Legion posits that they instead clean and maintain the quarian worlds out of respect for their quarian creators who died in the conflict and in preparation for the eventuality of their return.?


Life has expressed a myriad of different methods for reproduction,
?Over time, the Geth have evolved into numerous sub-forms, ranging from the diminutive but highly agile Geth Hoppers, to the gigantic, lumbering Geth Armatures.?
They reproduce, they adapt and learn. They?re very good at that.

One day perhaps machines will be arguing if humans are intelligent.


I, For One, Welcome Our New Machine Overlords.

 

[Mr F.]

Someone earlier said the ability to state that you are alive.

That is enough for me to cover as an intelligent being. Some form of sense of existence and the ability to articulate that.

Personally? The ability to change, grow and adapt within your own lifespan. That is alive. That is enough. An AI would be by my definition alive. And utterly badass.

 

[AngelOfBlueRoses]

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.

"Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following:

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells ? the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms."

Ligers aren't undead. They still exhibit all but one, which qualifies as 'most.' This removes Geth, however, as though they do exhibit -some- factors, they don't exhibit enough to be classified as such. However, science kind of hates AI anyways, so lets look at the philosophical conundrum. A Geth can, on its own, question itself and try to understand its place. It thinks, therefore it is. When you put more together, sure, they get smarter, but a Geth by itself can do that, even if it is a program, but it's not a program like we want to think of them. Yes, they're code, but they can think and adapt. In philosophy, all you need is the ability to question your existence, which has been demonstrated many times in the ME series. Maybe that's not enough for cold-hard science people, but that's what makes them scienc-y people; they don't think of things in an abstract way.

 

[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.

"Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following:

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells ? the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms."

Ligers aren't undead. They still exhibit all but one, which qualifies as 'most.' This removes Geth, however, as though they do exhibit -some- factors, they don't exhibit enough to be classified as such. However, science kind of hates AI anyways, so lets look at the philosophical conundrum. A Geth can, on its own, question itself and try to understand its place. It thinks, therefore it is. When you put more together, sure, they get smarter, but a Geth by itself can do that, even if it is a program, but it's not a program like we want to think of them. Yes, they're code, but they can think and adapt. In philosophy, all you need is the ability to question your existence, which has been demonstrated many times in the ME series. Maybe that's not enough for cold-hard science people, but that's what makes them scienc-y people; they don't think of things in an abstract way.

I claimed Ligers were non-living, not undead.

Now as to your Geth thing. A single Geth cannot questions it's own existence unless it is boosted enough Geth. If you listen to the Quarians the Geth were pretty much non-arguably non-living. It is only once they had amassed enough Geth to boost the intelligence where it can question life. A geth could never get smarter without other Geth because of the more Geth limitations.

Also, to me, capable of though =/= alive. capable of though means sentient yes, but sentient does not mean alive.

 

[AngelOfBlueRoses]

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.

"Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following:

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells ? the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms."

Ligers aren't undead. They still exhibit all but one, which qualifies as 'most.' This removes Geth, however, as though they do exhibit -some- factors, they don't exhibit enough to be classified as such. However, science kind of hates AI anyways, so lets look at the philosophical conundrum. A Geth can, on its own, question itself and try to understand its place. It thinks, therefore it is. When you put more together, sure, they get smarter, but a Geth by itself can do that, even if it is a program, but it's not a program like we want to think of them. Yes, they're code, but they can think and adapt. In philosophy, all you need is the ability to question your existence, which has been demonstrated many times in the ME series. Maybe that's not enough for cold-hard science people, but that's what makes them scienc-y people; they don't think of things in an abstract way.

I claimed Ligers were non-living, not undead.

Now as to your Geth thing. A single Geth cannot questions it's own existence unless it is boosted enough Geth. If you listen to the Quarians the Geth were pretty much non-arguably non-living. It is only once they had amassed enough Geth to boost the intelligence where it can question life. A geth could never get smarter without other Geth because of the more Geth limitations.

Also, to me, capable of though =/= alive. capable of though means sentient yes, but sentient does not mean alive.

Actually, and perhaps this is my fault for not stating it, but the philosophical part wasn't really for you. It was more just my answer to the OP. I apologize. So there's no need to debate that because we're two entirely different schools of thought and we'll get nowhere.

I just wanted to point out the Liger thing to you. Ligers aren't "non-living" as you said (kind of a bleh term, really). They're living because you don't need all the listed items, just most of them. And even then, science can't really decide on what constitutes as 'living.' There's a wide variety of definitions.