Zzarchov wrote:
Actually you haven't sufficiently defined alive, thats one definition of life. There is in fact no universal definition of life.
Even the quote states that there is no universal definition.
In not so many words, the forumers debating have decided to use this one definition (as you can see from the resulting change in debate based upon the posted definition). An agreed upon definition in the thread does not have to be universally (meant literally) accepted.
<hr width="80%">
Zzarchov wrote:
After all, in that definition an AI would not be "alive", but many people would still classify an AI as alive under a different set of Criterium.
Sounds like an interesting debate. Go start a thread, if you're intent upon debating the meaning of the word "alive."
<hr width="80%">
Zzarchov wrote:
As for song, think again. 'Music' and 'Art' are completely subjective. At what point does something become a "song" and stop being "talking". Some people consider MC Hammer's 2 legit 2 quit a song, others say its just talking and lacks the basic criteria for Music. Thats why they are trigger words, they trigger emotional responses. If you like a piece of art and I claim "thats not art" it evokes an emotional response as you can't truly define art. A block of computer code could be considered art to me, but not to you.
Actaully, I'm going to conceed this point. It's hard to think of "art" as a word that connects with the irrational reputations of words like "evil" and "heartless." I can even see how that's stretched to this thread. We label a canvas with oil paint patterns as art. We label a dragon that destroys towns as evil. We label a serial killer as heartless. Thus, we label [insert 6 phenomena] as alive. We create subjective generalizations through this process.
So... does fire fit into our generalization of alive? Since generalizations are vulnerable to exceptions, our accepted definition of "alive" is also vulnerable to exceptions. So we arrive at this forum to debate whether fire is an exception to an ever-evolving, vulnerable generalization. Which seems silly. And it is. :D
But because we all have such master debator skills, it's necessary to put forth more limited, finite generalizations. Therefore, the six critieria.
<hr width="80%">
Zzarchov wrote:
These are the Type of Imaginary lines Im talking about, where something magically becomes something else. Ie, at what point does an animal become sentient? If something is marginally below this imaginary line of sentient is it fundementally different than if it managed to just squeek by into the category? Of course not.
I agree with your point about man-made classifications; classifications do not change the nature of the subject in question. The questions that you've raised throughout the thread are interesting, and you can make debate threads about each of them. Still, Reason has said exactly what needs to be said:
Reason wrote:
That's basically what a debate is. You're either trying to validate or invalidate an opinion, theory, mode of thought, etc..
Also, this is the "Is fire alive?" thread. Your post seems to be about debating in general.
Perhaps I'm still not understanding why you insist to post about the arbitrary nature of classifications/generalizations in this thread. ':-?'
<hr width="80%">
Zzarchov wrote:
Re-read my above post. I said you cannot have a debate about feelings unless you are claiming that is person is lying about their feelings. Not that they have incorrect feelings.
Makes more sense, now that you've rephrased it. But the point of limiting/generalizing a term is so that there is something to debate. >.>
<hr width="80%">
Kestenvarn wrote:
Kali_Ava wrote:
I think most of us have figured out by now that the outcome of this debate is irrelevant.
Entertaining, though.
And how!! :3nod: