This commentary is an essay in which I deconstruct the concept of life from a biological and scientific perspective. This perspective is limited and this discussion below is an attempt to show that what we mean by the word "life" is at least a fuzzy logical concept and at most completely misguided.
What determines and defines life from non-life is not clear and these comments that follow are an attempt to show this lack of definition and pose problems with any such paradigmatic frameworks concerning the nature of life as something distinct from non-life.
There may be much more to all life than science can determine. Perhaps there is a phenomenological approach that can show there is more depth and layers to all existence, of which life and non-life is a part. From a pantheistic, anamistic, or deistic perspective, perhaps even what we determine to be unconscious non-life, such as crystals, do, in fact, experience in a way that can not be assumed or communicated.
That certain parts of the world do not have a mental characteristic is no more than a case of human arrogance and assumption. There was a long history of philosophers dismissing the conscious experience and emotional capacity of animals. Behavior alone says nothing about the experience of plants, the sun, entire galaxies, or the mental state of the universe(s) itself/themselves.
These concepts may seem foreign, but it makes no difference how strange reality may be in terms of what it may be like to be any particular part of reality. Perhaps rivers and mountains have a characteristic we are not aware of in our scientific-realist paradigm that has infected even the most open of minds.
From 1999:
Life is an extension of what we call 'non-life' through evolutionary processes that
shape 'non-life' to reproduce in an adaptive manner. The only purpose of all life, biologically speaking,
is to reproduce.
Life takes on special characteristics at certain higher levels of
complexity and organization. Such characteristics could be anything, but such
characteristics found on Earth include vision, consciousness, and other such abilities.
Life can evolve wherever the circumstances permit it to- other planets, etc.
Life is that property
or quality of plants and animals that distinguishes them from inorganic matter or dead
organisms; specif., the cellular biochemical activity or processes of an organism,
characterized by the ingestion of nutrients, the storage and use of
energy, the excretion of wastes, growth, reproduction, etc.
The definition of biological life: The type of life being discussed is life
that lives, not life in the sense of duration of existence. The definition of biological
life has constantly been in question and is outlined above. In the
following sections I have outlined reasons for my understanding of life.
Life does not exist. This statement may seem contrary to every biology
textbook, most holy tomes, and the general consensus among people. However, when one looks
at the basis of the term life scientifically, and begins to recognize its
true qualities, the word loses many of its religious and mystical connotations.
The term life has been defined by the scientific community as that which meets a
certain criteria. Life must be able to reproduce. Life must be able to interact with
its environment. Life must be able to adapt to its environment. Life must also be able to
intake and excrete parts of its environment in order to grow and survive. So where is the
line between the inanimate and the living? The line currently drawn is between the most
complex viruses and the most basic bacteria.
Viruses, for the most part, have crystalline
structures and a capsule full of genetic material in the form of either DNA or RNA.
Bacteria, on the other hand, are somewhat more complex, and much larger when compared to
viruses. The most basic bacteria has a cell membrane, and an inner region which contains
the genetic material. This basic bacteria has a different method of reproduction than the
virus, but both reproduce. It could be argued that the virus has a less complex, yet more
efficient way of reproducing.
The virus, while implanting the genetic material into cell,
uses the facilities of the cell to make huge quantities of viruses,
killing the cell and allowing the virus copies to wait for new cells to take advantage of.
Referring to the virus copies as offspring is not grammatically correct, because inanimate
things cannot have offspring, right?
Different levels of matter depend on one another. Once, in a philosophy class
that dealt with the cognitive sciences, the teacher drew a pyramid of the sciences on the
board. At the base was elementary particles, studied by physics, and at the top was life,
studied by biology. The levels were all are based upon one another, and one could not
exist without the latter.
Chemistry would not study molecules if their were no basic
particles to make them, which are studied by physics. So without atoms,
higher, more complex things would not exist at all. The point I am getting at is that we
can reduce ourselves and everything else deemed living down to the most basic of
elements.
Evolution teaches that life came from Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and a few
other scattered elements. Are these atomic compositions found on any Periodic Table
of Elements actually alive? Does a Carbon and four Hydrogens bonded together constitute life?
How about a few trillion Carbons, along with as many Hydrogens, Nitrogens, and Oxygens,
along with those other scattered elements?
Is this life? I think that most biologists
would have a hard time refuting that this is what we, as humans, are made of at an atomic
level. Any given rock possess most of the above mentioned elements. But,
there is one difference that is glaringly obvious between ourselves and a rock. That
difference is the product of evolution, which is organization.
The conditions and existence of the lowest life form. The virus is organized,
but people argue, not organized and complex enough. Does it have free will, or does it
obey the laws of nature? Most would say that it is too simple to do anything but what it
is programmed by evolution to do, reproduce. It seems as though the goal of life is
to reproduce and survive on an individual basis, and through this, survive on a
species-wide level. So what is the viruses motivation for survival?
It does not want to
see it’s children have better lives than it did, nor does it feel as though it should
continue its own kind, it has no ability to do so. How about the living bacteria?
Does it actually accomplish any more than the virus? I would definitely say no, but it is
clearly more complex and organized in a way to sustain that complexity. Does the bacteria
have free will?
I think most would agree that, like the virus, the bacteria are forced to
be slaves of the laws of nature. Studies show that bacteria have a primitive memory, which
explains why strains become resistant to penicillin. Its chance for reproduction is
enhanced by the fact that it adapts to the environment better than the virus.
So, now the
level of organization and complexity has increased significantly. But what lies at the
base this organization and complexity is fundamentally the same as the
elements which initially came from the Earth. The bacteria is different, but it is made of
the same elements as the virus, uses the same genetic material, and, in the end, does
nothing more than reproduce.
Now that the border between life and non-life has been examined thoroughly, the
highest forms of life must be looked at in the same light. And, as we seem to be the
most complex and adaptive organisms on Earth, human beings take first prize for highest
form of life. One statement must be looked at carefully.
Bacteria are more complex, and
their organization allows for that complexity, but they are made of the same elements as
the viruses, the same genetic material is used in reproduction, and, in the end, they do
nothing more than reproduce. Read the previous sentence once more, but instead of the word
"bacteria" insert the word "humans".
I have surpassed a number of
other plants and animals, and jumped from bacteria to humans for a specific reason. It
clearly shows how reduction can be logically used to bring us humans "Down to
Earth" to put it literally. In a strictly biological sense, our purpose as products
of the process of evolution is to reproduce. I am not trying to diminish the wonderful
aspects of being human, such as art, love, beauty, and all other things
which make it worth while. I am however, saying, that these things need not be categorized
as mysterious or religious.
The problems of Consciousness. Descartes and many traditional philosophers
would argue in a somewhat logical manner that we are alive because we are conscious.
Consciousness is just another word used to describe our complex ability to think, reason,
and introspect to a certain degree. It does not disqualify our ancestral link to the basic
elements found on Earth.
And, to those who would argue in any religious aspects in a
scientific discussion I would need to bring up a point. Through the process of evolution,
where does this special consideration in the form of divinity or spirit come into us? It
is much like drawing a line on, or categorizing life. Did a spirit
evolve with the primates? With the bacteria? Religions that teach something other than
evolution are based upon nonsensical, illogical reasoning that defies what is commonly
known as fact. |
|
|
Another analogy is helpful when considering the term life. When I was a child,
I enjoyed more than anything, playing with Lego blocks. One small, blue block by itself is
much like an element or molecule. When more and more colors and types of blocks are
incorporated, the structure takes on more and more complexity. And, if over time, I played
the role of evolution, I would have quite a substantial amount of amazing structures built
using the basic blocks. At what point does the complexity or organization of my blocks
become life?
One, ten, ten million? It seems as though a line or category is useless,
because the blocks are still fundamentally the same and must obey the laws which govern
the individual pieces, and the pieces that make up the pieces for that
matter. The term artificial intelligence often arises and must be looked at also. I feel
that we are, in a sense, artificial intelligence, programmed by nature in the form of
evolution.
The question is often raised, "Could computers ever be alive?".
Through my argument, the answer would be no. That is, not having any more life than
we do. So, if the question actually is, "Could a computer be like us?" I would
say yes.
In philosophy, the discipline of Functionalism holds that if the output is the
same, the mechanism which reacts to stimuli is irrelevant. This makes perfect sense,
because, as humans, we are all different to a degree, yet when we are poked and prodded,
we all will generally be annoyed or experience a degree of pain.
It is possible that the
color spectrum is inverted among varying humans. It does not matter, because of the fact
that we all attribute the same thing "blue" no matter if we saw red or blue as a
child. A computer can not obviously process color as we do (yet), but it can distinguish
between red and blue and call it by its appropriate name according to our language. And
again, a computer is composed of the same basic elements we are. But computers were not
designed by evolution.
And, because of that, computers were never given the innate ability
to reproduce as the most basic amino acids were in the primordial ooze
where evolution began. Does a computer constitute life? Again, I would argue that
nothing truly constitutes life, because it is a word that separates and attempts to
categorize aspects which are intrinsically the same for all forms of matter.
Illustration of robots meeting criteria for life. A group of robotics
engineers were sitting at a table, conversing about theoretical ideas and problems, when
one of them came up with a profound idea. He asked, what if a colony of self-sustaining
robots could be made so that they could physically reproduce. Seem like science fiction?
Well, preliminary experiments have shown that it is much closer to science-fact. Imagine a
huge expanse of desert, hot, scorching, but full of a precious thing, sunlight.
Then,
build three classes of miniature robots, all simple yet integral to the whole population,
each with its own set of instructions in the form of a computer chip. The first class move
and transport the silica and other minerals found in the sand. We could call these the
"diggers". Then, program another group to build and maintain miniature
factories, where reproduction takes place in the form of an assembly line. These are the
"reproducers".
And, the final group are the one who go out and build
photo-electric panels for capturing and storing the sun’s energy. These would be the
"sun-catchers." Their numbers would grow exponentially with time, because as
more factories are built and more "reproducers" make more robots, growing
amounts of materials would be available as would energy. Their electronic components would
be equivalent to DNA; a form of internal programming.
And, if there were small flaws in
the chips made by one group of "reproducers", would this not be similar to
evolution in some ways? Of course, these robots would all serve humans by surrendering any
solar energy that was in surplus, thereby powering the city of Las
Vegas, or any other place where desert space is readily available. Imagine a million of
these robots all moving and working in groups, descended from an initial thirty or forty
robots. Would they be considered a form of life?
Conclusion: Most would agree that the term life seems to place things
above the chemicals they were begot from. And, I would concede that the term life has extremely important relations to a myriad of complex issues. But, as I have argued, in
a purely scientific and philosophical sense, life must be scrutinized and seen in
an entirely different light.
If we can be the creators of life, in the form of
computers, robots, or even organic systems like ourselves, then we certainly must
re-examine what this term specifies. We must remember how much we have in common with the
robot, with the virus, with basic molecules and the elements themselves. When we look
deeply into our physical composition, we may find that we are more like the virus than we
think.
We may find that we are also unable to defy the programming that makes us or the
environment that shapes us. So, as my complex and organized matter sits here and types on
this computer, which is no more alive than I am, I feel more and more a part of the
physical universe that we all exist in.
