Kai: "New forms of life"?

[Chairman Risus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b694exl_oZo

Here's the description the video already had:
http://www.ted.com Artist Theo Jansen demonstrates the amazingly lifelike kinetic sculptures he builds from plastic tubes and lemonade bottles. His creatures are designed to move -- and even survive -- on their own.

[Vene]

I've seen this sort of thing before, but it is still interesting.  But I find it silly to call them "alive" and especially silly to call them "animals" because they are most definitely neither.  No reproduction=no life.

[Richter]

They meet SOME of the criteria, but not enough to fit the textbook definition.  No secretion / excretion either.

[Vene]

They meet SOME of the criteria, but not enough to fit the textbook definition.  No secretion / excretion either.

Actually, I'm willing to give them a metabolism one, just because they use wind energy for motion.

I will readily admit there is not a good definition of life, but reproduction is a pretty damn important part of it.

[Elder Iptuous]

I will readily admit there is not a good definition of life, but reproduction is a pretty damn important part of it.

Why is it requisite? and does it have to reproduce in a certain way?
would a robot with artificial intelligence that can assemble a copy of itself be alive?

[Vene]

Why is it requisite? and does it have to reproduce in a certain way?

Mostly because it is a unique characteristic and is a basic common trait between plants, animals, fungi, and bacteria.  It's also essential for evolution, another big part of life.  I know this isn't the best answer, sorry.  I'm more knowledgeable about life at a molecular level, at which point it follows the same laws of physics and chemistry that any inanimate object does.  I eagerly await Kai's opinion because he studies whole organisms instead of their pieces.

The second question is harder to answer.  For example, viruses can reproduce, granted they need a host, but many bacteria and fungi require a host to survive as well.  And prions are misfolded proteins, but they can make other, preexisting, proteins into prions as well.  Viruses and prions are not typically considered alive, but I'm not so sure about that.  Especially with viruses because they are able to undergo evolution and take control of a host's biochemical processes.

would a robot with artificial intelligence that can assemble a copy of itself be alive?

That is a very good question (this means I don't know).  Certainly if you considering viruses (or prions for that matter) to be alive this hypothetical robot fits as well.

[Richter]

They meet SOME of the criteria, but not enough to fit the textbook definition.  No secretion / excretion either.

Actually, I'm willing to give them a metabolism one, just because they use wind energy for motion.

I will readily admit there is not a good definition of life, but reproduction is a pretty damn important part of it.

To go on a bit of a tangent there though, it makes me wonder how life would exist without reproduction.  Instead of development and adaptation occuring over multiple generations by an evolutionary mechanism, how would / could it occur over a single organism that can continually self adapt?  How would the need to self - adapt or self - specialize affect the development of awareness / intelligence?

While we may never SEE such a lifeform, it would be an interesting parable to explain self - adapting AI / Robotics.
(At this point, I wait for 000, Enki, or Cram to pipe in.)

[Vene]

That is a very interesting idea Richter.  I'm not exactly sure how it would work, probably would need some fundamentally different biochemistry too.  I would imagine it would have to be much more resistant to the harmful effects of mutation (assuming it could even use the DNA/RNA system).  Or maybe a few "supercritters" that ingest anything remotely organic (or inorganic for that matter).

Then again, unless something is built without any form of reproduction it would have to remain a single cell.  I think the consensus is that multicellularity evolved from single-celled organisms living in colonies until they became interdependent on each other to the point it's impossible to call them individuals.

[Elder Iptuous]

Isn't the Leviathan in the Illuminatus! trilogy such a creature?  A giant single celled creature that is nigh immortal, and adapts itself?

[Vene]

The problem with giant single-celled life is that when their volume to surface area ratio is too high it can no longer perform basic cellular functions and dies.

I don't remember if that is what the Leviathan was, but it sounds familiar.  Rat probably knows.

[Kai]

To me, the 3 big parts of what makes something living.

A) Metabolism. It has to convert energy to do whatever processes it has. There has to be some sort of exchange of energy, or things that had died (ie become ametabolic) would be considered living.

B) Response to stimuli. If a so called lifeform does not have any sort of response to stimuli from the environment, whether by simple trigger or complex neurology, it can't be living.

C) Reproduction. A living organism must have some process to reproduce itself. Yes, sterile beings would be considered living still, since the capacity for reproduction works on the cellular level as well. Reproduction is everything from fission to bisexual gametes.

The reason we use these clarifiers is because life is not just a unit, its a process, and we understand it as a process. You have to look at the organism over time.

I'll give the machines in the video part A. The use of wind is rather ingenious, transfer straight from kinetic energy to other kinetic energy to movement. It even has a bit of B, though very basic, it reacts to the stimulus of the waves. There is no sign, however, of C, and that is by many people the most important one. If the organism can't reproduce itself, then its not really alive. Thats part of the definition of a living thing because life is a process and to speak of something as living outside this process is quite....meaningless.

[Vene]

Thanks Kai, you made it a lot clearer than what I was saying.

[Kai]

Even if it were able to reproduce I highly doubt it would be a very fit organism. Large and delicate, and confined to a small environment.

[Requia ☣]

Isn't the Leviathan in the Illuminatus! trilogy such a creature?  A giant single celled creature that is nigh immortal, and adapts itself?

It would still need to be able to reproduce pieces of itself, even if not to survive (this is a thought experiment, we can presuppose it has some magic protein structure that does not decay), then in order to adapt, as well as in order to reach the size it did.

Bonus points to the bio geeks here for not trotting out the 'life is made of cells' definition.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

There's more 11 synchronicity in that video.

I am experiencing the law of fives with elevens, bigtime.