John Hunter wrote in message <1rvgsvey84.fsf at video.bsd.uchicago.edu>...
>>>>>> "Vytautas" == Vytautas <Slotkusl at yahoo.com> writes:
>> Vytautas> What is "life capable"? What we with our current
> Vytautas> technology level can make alive (in this case add "some"
> Vytautas> water).
>>A thing that does not meet the definition of alive, but with proper
>external input from its environment, would meet that definition.
>> Vytautas> In the future with better techniques we may be
> Vytautas> able to make a corpse "30 years in the grave"
> Vytautas> "alive".
>>And I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
You don't understand the argument. The same clonning process already can
achieve such a thing, but we can say it is not exactly the corpse wich is
"life capable". With the neccesary technology, I think we may need
nanotechnology besides advanced biotechnology methods, can make the same "30
years old corpse" alive. I don't say the human would keep having his memory,
but the "corpse" would be definitely "alive" So the "30 years old corpse"
WOULD be "life capable". All is technology.
> Vytautas> So your deffinition of "life capable" is only a
> Vytautas> deffinition of what we can do now (or what we know that
> Vytautas> can happen in nature the natural way).
>>Right, it can change with the environment. What is life capable now
>might not have been life capable 100 years ago (an MI on the operating
>table before the advent of electricity). You rightly clarify that it
>is property of the thing and its environment. I think this is where
>the need for the 3rd category arises: dead or alive are both
>environment independent notions.
Yes, and "life capable" is not. So this definition can't exist alone. You
may say something is "life capable" under certain conditions, but there
can't be a definition of "life capable". Carbon dioxide is too "life
capable"! We have to make the neccesary mix with other compounds (like NH3,
H2O, and other), add some electric discharges, let it stay with slowly
changing conditions (imitating the evolution of the Earth enviroment during
the same period of time), so in some hundred million (or a couple of
billion) years you can obtain a living thing, wich would be of course
"alive". So carbon dioxide is "life capable"? Yes, but under such
conditions, we couldn't afford ourselves, and wouldn't even take into
account. You may say it hasn't been proved this is the way life appeared on
Earth, but if we WOULD know the way, then this process would be POSSIBLE. So
yes, your definition doesn't exist in a practical way, or as you use it.