Is it alive?

[wonder]

Given that it is already possible to "create a computer simulation of a complete organism", would you say that "it's alive"?
Source: http://sm.stanford.edu/archive/stanmed/2012fall/article9.html

In my opinion, yes it is, but what do you think? Let's discuss it!

 

[JordiCP]

Yes, somehow it is 'alive'. In fact they 'live' in a laboratory, that is the simulation program . And if you pause the program, they can be hibernated

As a side thought, one could think of computer virus as the first fully-digital alive entities. Because it is not a simulation of an organic entity, but have their own rules, ways to reproduce and mutate, adapting to environment...

 

[udg]

According to what some scientists think, we should care if WE are alive..eheh
Anyway, my vote goes to yes; an artificial life is as much alive as a biological life if we can agree on broad, not biased, common evaluation criteria.

 

[LucaMs]

The only way to be alive is to be happy, otherwise you're only apparently alive.

 

[Cableguy]

The concept of life cannot be established without defining death.
A few decades ago, a person (or animal) was considered dead if no breathing was noticed.
Then it evolved to heart beat...
These were considered to be the definition of being alive since they could not be artificially maintained.
Nowadays, the lack of brain activity defines death... untill the moment that brain activity will be reproducible in laboratory conditions.
Remember the scene on the first Sloan movie where the android had only the torso, but they plugged it in to a bunch of wires and hoses? Was he considered to be "alive"?
Will an autonomous, self thinking and learning, robot ever be considered "alive"?

 

[LucaMs]

The concept of life cannot be established without defining death.

"Tomorrow" (max a couple of centuries) the human being will become eternally young, after a simple vaccine, I'm sure; in this case he will not be alive? Yes, but only if happy (or at least not unhappy).