What makes life vital (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, March 02, 2015, 12:30 (3554 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: ....I have pointed out that over and over again he [Talbott] contradicts your claim that organisms are automatons.
DAVID: No he does not. I know the quotes to intelligence you love referring to are in the essays I present. You act as if I don't know them. I keep repeating the point that life is a very complex interaction of biochemical reactions resulting in the emergence of the phenomenon we call life. -This is a constant source of misunderstanding between us. Of course life is a complex interaction of biochemical reactions, and that has never been the point at issue, which is summed up by the following: 
DAVID: The terms you like to seize on are analogies, because the concept of how life works biochemically is so hard to describe.-The terms I seize on describe not the concept of how life works biochemically, but attributes of the living organisms - even including bacteria - which my “favourite scientists” say are sentient, conscious, intelligent, communicative, decision-making beings. (In the latest Talbott article, he italicizes “beings”, i.e. as opposed to machines.) These are not analogies. Your response has always been that they may look intelligent but in fact they are automata. Automata ARE machines.-TONY: I think I might start with the word "alive" "living" and "conscious". The problem is not the language that we possess, but rather our insistence on treating living creatures as machines. Sprocket A turns cog B and we get thigamajigger D to do a little dance causing bobble C to wobble precariously and create cancer. Presto!
This goes hand in hand with our understanding of biology, genetics, and virtually all of life. Ever since the rise of naturalism and reductionism our outlook has been that of looking at everything mechanically. The problem is not our language, it is our worldview.
DAVID: Good point. Sometimes it is hard to recognize our bodies are more than machines. But that is how we describe them.-I would like to think that Tony's comments do not refer solely to humans but to all organisms, as his reference to world view would seem to indicate, and not solely to bodies but to the attributes I have listed above. (Tony, please correct me if I'm wrong.) In other words, sometimes it is hard to recognize that non-humans (perhaps even single-celled organisms like bacteria) are more than machines, but that is how you, David, describe them. My “favourite scientists” describe them as sentient, conscious, intelligent etc. beings - terms which could easily be avoided if they were to be taken metaphorically and not literally.