AL (Artificial Life) and the people who love it

Well, an off-topic comparison is a comparison none-the-less. I don't see calling it artificial as saying its anything less. Their provenance is the fundamental difference. Given two lifeforms without the knowledge of their provenance and being unable to tell the difference, then basically they are the same. I don't disagree with you here. But one of them is still artificial if we can tell it or not. There's still a fundamental difference even if we don't know it.

You're taking this too far, Ringo.I know there's no difference other than the way they were made. But that is still a difference. Maybe not a fundamental one, that was just poor word choice. And that difference is outside my mind and I'm not delusional.What the hell are you typing about?I think that you are assuming too much about me. I have no problem calling this life. The differece is in the way they were made. Even identical chemicals can be distinguished as synthetic or natural because of the way they were processed, yet they are chemically identical.If one of the photos was digital and one was, uhhh, came from film... (is that analog?), but you didn't know that and you couldn't tell the difference, we could still say that the photos are different because one is digital and one isn't. I don't see why you have a problem with this?I don't really have any ramifications for this difference in the two life forms. They are both life, its just that one was created by man and one wasn't. How can you say that that is not a difference?

A point I accept.My point is that one being in vivo and one being in vitro is a difference. So what if we can't tell?And so what if it is a difference? Not much of anything, really. We could call it 'artificial' if we were so inclined (like it has been done) but it is still life none-the-less.

Yes, there is no detectable difference. I recognize that. But recognizable differences are not the only ones. Thier provenance, for example, is an unrecognizable differences. 1) We take our suppliers documented word for it.
2) We run an FTIR to make sure there's no recognizable difference. Old indeed. But I disagree with your principle. Are you saying that there cannot be differences that are unable to be recognized? The difference is their provenance and it is unrecognizable.

The evidence of the difference is the fact that it is man-made.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : syntax error

From Message 138You couldn’t. There really is no benefit to introducing the ”biological machine” concept. Both the natural and artificial are life. In general, I’m not so sure I agree with this. I mean, what if just we cannot tell the difference, like, we are unable to detect the difference that does exist? Presumably, there could exist two different “things” that we are unable to see the difference. Just because we cannot tell the difference does not mean that “they necessarily must be the same thing”. Message 143Yes, I agree that it is, in fact, life.

Oh... well if you say so What!? I didn't read anything by him to suggest that. The starting elements do not have life in them. They are truely non-life...chemicals and nothing more. But you are still wrong in what the scientists have used as building blocks to create the artificial life. Whatever dude. That really isn't helping any.Anyways, do you need a time machine or to meet god for me to prove to you that I ate a bagel for breakfast this morning?Of course not.Why can't the same be true for other things? In that case, these scientists would be investigating how the aliens created life, or how that alien life arrose. That doesn't really do anything ot the discussion either.Life can come from non-life.What are the ramifications of this?

For all practical purposes, this artificial life is indeed life and there is no reason to distinguish it as a "biological machine". They created life from non-life. What are the ramifications of this, in your opinion?