Quote:
Originally Posted by marsbug
I'm suggesting that 'alive' be an umbrella term for any system that has a certain amount of complexity, and that it doesn't need to show any specific behavoir other than having that level of complexity to qualify.
|
Its an interesting idea. My take on what you are saying is there is no sharp boundary between "Not Alive" and "Alive", but more a gradual transition. Along that idea, there is some research I posted about some months ago in
this thread.
Quote:
|
The advent of synthetic life may have gotten a bit closer. Biochemist Jack W. Szostak and colleagues at Massachusetts General Hospital have designed a fatty acid container that takes in building blocks from outside to supply a spontaneous DNA-copying reaction on the inside
|
But I'm not sure that "complexity" is the right criteria. For example, the Space Shuttle might be more complex that a simple bacteria, but the bacteria is certainly more alive.
I think it is more that there are certain characteristics that we attribute to living things that we don't to non-living, such as reproduction and metabolism (taking in food and either growing or using the energy). It might be that the "creation of life" school assumes that all of these characteristics have to arise together, but instead, they might be able to arise independently so. That would mean that you could have things have some of these characteristics, but not others, and thus would be "semi-alive".