At what point do particles become "alive"

What is coded in DNA if not information?
How do bacteria interact with their environment?
I'm a systems/network ecologist so don't expect me to know much about microbiology, but bacteria certainly process information and have a mind, it's just not a conscious one.

>deterministic universe where all actions are as the pilot wave dictates

nothing is truly alive

They are always alive

Being alive isn't about being free it is about being aware

Isn't a simple molecular bond, like that found in a molecule of water, "information"? Just very little information?

Wrong. Everything is alive.

2deep4me

Semantics.

Bacteria have a very low level of consciousness. If not, show me the dividing line between an organism that is conscious and an organism that is not. Brotip: you can't

welcome to the glorious world of Cellular Automatons aka self replicating organisms

Yeah, but it doesn't signify(code) for anything by itself, and cannot be processed by itself.
Our sign systems like language and vision are what signifies our scientific understanding of that molecular bond and is the medium that allows that information to be processed. Just like a vascular plant can sense solar radiation and move its leaves in order to maximize photosynthetic efficiency. It's all about the sign relations.

More pragmatics and biosemiotics

>is he really trying to dismiss meaning as irrelevant

That's why I put "information" in quotes. To signify the thing that information stands for.

A conscious organism has to be able to experience it's mind.
You can't experience a mind without a symbolic memory and the sensory capabilities. This is made possible by animal neurology.
Animals are the first life to do this as far as I am aware of, perhaps mycorrhizal networks but that is just a guess

That's a very different (very idiosyncratic) definition of consciousness. When used by consciousness researchers, the term consciousness does not have the ability to "experience one's mind" as a requirement. This is seen as a feeble attempt to separate human consciousness from other forms of consciousness. None have ever been successful.

How can an organism be conscious if it can't sense and process it's mind? (Situational awareness)
I think you might be confusing consciousness with mindedness. Many people don't think all life is conscious.
The hard problem isn't a problem, funny enough it arises from an anthropocentric veiw of consciousness, like you just accused me of even though I just stated that animals and possibly even fungi are conscious.
Humans are sentient and share that some other animals but it really doesn't make us special, most of us aren't even ecologically conscious at any significant level.

Then no, probably, maybe. information cannot exist without something being informed, as far as I know, I don't know about information like I do signs.
Interesting questions though

Those people appear to be wrong, and this is becoming increasingly apparent.

It's an emergent behavior. Really, it doesn't make sense to talk about particles being alive or dead, because at their level there is no concept of life. You could assert that since everything is made of these particles, clearly they must become life at some point. Well, no. Keep in mind that science deals with models, approximations of reality that have a domain of applicability--you don't study classical mechanics with quantum physics or vice versa. Understanding this is vital to understanding why there is emergent behavior and why ultrareductionism is a dead end.

I disagree.
Tell me how life can possibly be conscious without experiencing the mind.
It might be helpful to you to know is subscribe to spread mind theory and belive the mind is the signs used to interpret the world, not the mechanisms that allow for interpretation.
I haven't found a definition of consciousness that excludes awareness as a qualifier.

When they are self-related entities defining themselves formally in contradistinction to their environment.

When they self-relate in a causal way, "bootstrapping themselves out of a sea of chemistry and physics" (Varela). Meaning they are not determined by another, but self-limiting, in the form of activity, all activity is essentially the self-determination (limitation, "do this and not that") of the organism. This means a circle is established between cause and effect, where the effect causes it's cause. Cause->Effect->Cause->Effect; there is literally no way to establish a cause as primary, since when a life form emerges it's an absolutely causally emergent system. This is how natural systems display teleonomic causality, where the initial state doesn't matter to the result, but the end-goal causes the process: such as homeostasis.

This is spooky to physicists and chemists.
t. amateur biology enthusiast

>>deterministic universe where all actions are as the pilot wave dictates

Are you from the 18th century?

>grandpa still desperately clings to Copenhagen when the EmDrive blew it the fuck out

zoz

Whatever dude. Quantum physics doesn't even matter to whether the 'universe' fits your model.

Is the 'universe' a quantum physical entity? No you fucking idiot.

You cling to atomistic order "at the bottom of things" when this very ground has been dissolved even in quantum physics itself.

Keep to your faith if you like, your friends in the 18th century agree with you at least.

>>deterministic universe

>antinomy between determinism and freedom/life

Sort yourself out with pic related.

Some kind of movement would be the very first step to identify something as alive.

>MemeDrive
Well memed my friend

>Tell me how life can possibly be conscious without experiencing the mind.
I can't tell you that yet. But just because I can't doesn't mean it can be ruled out on that basis alone. There is some tantalizing new evidence that suggests it might just be true. But time will tell as we investigate further.

there no such thing as life, there is only consciousness

I'm guessing this comment is meant to be funny. It's not.

not an argument brainlet

don't kid i know you are memeing

you can stop pretending to be serious now i get the joke

>NASA confirmed it worked, going to launch one into space
>China's putting it on their space station
>just a meme

maximum zozzle, get with the times you Copenhagen cultist

>there is some tantalizing evidence
What mockery is this

BURN

>media.uoregon.edu/channel/archives/5936
Cheers fella. Good channel.

metabolism is a good criterion for life, though viruses don't metabolize. Everything viruses do is happens purely through thermodynamic equilibrization.

Traditionally it's been defined with the three following characteristics:
1. Able to replicate in some fashion and "pass on" it's genetics to its offspring
2. Able to metabolize (doesn't matter how)
3. Able to interact/react with/to its environment

For this reason viruses are not alive, even though they clearly fulfill the biological imperative. Our definition for what is alive will probably change over time, because viruses are basically dropped into a category with machines right now.

Also interesting to note: this actually means several organelles are alive entirely on their own. For example, mitochondria have their own genetic material to replicate with, obviously perform metabolism, and respond to their environment. This supports the phagocytosis theory.

Mitochondria can't even make their own ribosomes, though, so I'd hesitate to call them 'alive.'

are animals alive?

Are there any theories that all life only carries out its functions to achieve atomic/nuclear/molecular stability? Like, we are not really alive and only act on instinct.

I admit they have lost some molecular machinery over the time of being engulfed in another organism

Not to my knowledge, but life is real interested in replication. I suppose in some way the idea of keeping oneself in existence (even if just through one's children) is a form of stability.

Something is alive when/if it is made up of at least one cell, can respond to external stimuli, and produce offspring.

T. Highschool biology teacher