My favorite argument for the existence of God

[Archie Dupont]

but i asked what is the difference that make one of them to be a creature and one of them to be a robot.

A question again, without giving your own input.
Please reply substantively to my previous post.

@xianghua maybe now is the time, instead of asking us all the questions, you giving us your definitions of the following things:

Robot:

Organic material/components:

Self replication:

Design:

Until you provide insight into your definitions on these subjects we cannot continue to talk about this.
You are just asking things in the hope that our answers will be inconsistent or wrong, so you can pin it on us and claim intellectual high ground. Meanwhile you avoid going into the details yourself

 

[xianghua]

Are you claiming it's self-replicating and made 100% from organic materials? If it is it's a new species that needs to be properly investigated. Chances are it will get a different name.

why not call it a watch?

 

[xianghua]

You can metaphorically call an animal a robot.

Metaphors are fine.

The problem is that you use a metaphor and say that since you used that metaphor every thing that is true about a robot is true about that animal.

That is not fine.

its not a metaphor.

 

[xianghua]

Being alive is a significant difference.

and that difference is?...

 

[bhsmte]

and that difference is?...

LOL

 

[Michael]

and that difference is?...

Awareness.

 

[xianghua]

Awareness.

so a plant isnt a living thing?

 

[xianghua]

This is not organic material that can self replicate. It is dead wood. Like I said: "not pieces of meat stapled together"

so if it had a self replicating system and organic components it will not be a watch?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

why not call it a watch?

The object in the picture is a watch. An animal that looks like a watch may or may not be called a watch - the scientist who classified it may name it horologium brachii, for example. But until such time as this animal is discovered it shall remain unnamed.

 

[Michael]

so a plant isnt a living thing?

Sure it is. It may also have a rudimentary sense of awareness of environment and a primitive type of communication mechanism.

https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/38727/title/Plant-Talk/
How Plants Secretly Talk to Each Other

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

and that difference is?...

Broadly, the presence of biological processes that maintain the integrity and functionality of the entity and allow it to grow and reproduce.

For example, a popular definition of life includes the following characteristics:

1. Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature
2. Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells – the basic units of life
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms. [wikipedia]

Robots typically lack all but item 6, and - in special circumstances - item 1.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sure it is. It may also have a rudimentary sense of awareness of environment and a primitive type of communication mechanism.

That doesn't distinguish plants as living things - and many (most?) robots have both capabilities.

 

[xianghua]

Broadly, the presence of biological processes that maintain the integrity and functionality of the entity and allow it to grow and reproduce.

For example, a popular definition of life includes the following characteristics:

1. Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature
2. Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells – the basic units of life
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms. [wikipedia]

Robots typically lack all but item 6, and - in special circumstances - item 1.

so if a watch will has all those traits it will not be a watch but a living thing?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

so if a watch will has all those traits it will not be a watch but a living thing?

If a watch was a living thing, it would be both a watch and a living thing by definition. If a fish was a penny whistle, it would be both a fish and a penny whistle by definition.

You can imaginatively combine any classes or types of things that way and the result would be belong to both classes or types by definition - but they're not necessarily real, they don't necessarily make sense, and they're not necessarily possible - particularly if they have conflicting definitions, like robots and living things.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can imaginatively combine any classes or types of things that way and the result would be belong to both classes or types by definition - but they're not necessarily real, they don't necessarily make sense, and they're not necessarily possible - particularly if they have conflicting definitions, like robots and living things.

Kinda like "flying squirrel" and other mistakes made by scientists?

 

[Speedwell]

Kinda like "flying squirrel" and other mistakes made by scientists?

What is the mistake?
Flying squirrel - Wikipedia

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Kinda like "flying squirrel" and other mistakes made by scientists?

Not really, no.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is the mistake?

Do squirrels fly?

 

[Speedwell]

Do squirrels fly?

Some do. That's why they are called "flying squirrels."

 

[AV1611VET]

Not really, no.

Maybe you can tell me why blueprints used to show electricity going from positive to negative?