> Do you think DNA is alive or just a collection of bonded atoms?

How are you defining life? I'm not defining DNA as alive; it is a function of life, the informational system in life that is, as far as we know, necessary for life. So DNA is a necessary functional component of life systems. Is it "alive" all by itself? It depends how you are defining life. I've mentioned before that scientists struggle exactly how to define life (by definition? by characteristics? by essential components? by viability?). Astronomers seeking to discover life on other planets can only define life as we know it. Will they actually recognize life if it is completely different than our definitions, and how would they know?

I get it that you're trying hard to paint me into the corner of a box, but it's not so straightforward. Without DNA, there is no life, and I'm not sure DNA can survive by itself outside of a context, so I'm not at all convinced that "the answer is the latter."

>Also, viruses have RNA, which acts nearly identically to DNA, but no life.

RNA is not nearly identical to DNA. RNA are building blocks that turn into DNA, but let's not get the two confused. There are big gaps between them.

> Biological life isn't required of genetic code.

Biological life can't exist without genetic code, and genetic code can't exist without a biological component, so I think your definitions and premises are too squirrelly to help the discussion much.

> I question your claim about space, time, and fundamental particles. We know of no DNA outside of the Earth. It's a function of life, not of space and time per se.

Do you think DNA is alive or just a collection of bonded atoms? The answer is the latter. Also, viruses have RNA, which acts nearly identically to DNA, but no life. Biological life isn't required of genetic code.

> Do you know DNA itself is a map of space, time, and fundamental particles?

We all know what DNA is. We had high school and college science, and so even went on to grad and post-grad work. DNA is molecular genetic information coded in A, C, T, & G: chemical bases where information is stored as code.

I question your claim about space, time, and fundamental particles. We know of no DNA outside of the Earth. It's a function of life, not of space and time per se.

> All of these have dimensions that can be described by complex strings of 0s and 1s.

We use binary code to describe, replicate, and simulate, yes. Donald McDonald has discovered that built within the structure of DNA is even-bit parity code—biological systems that are almost identical to scientific constructs.

> I am asking a question about a hypothetical. Can you answer the question?

I'm tracing back through the thread to find the hypothetic question you've asked that I haven't addressed. I can't come up with it. Please restate it, and I'll be glad to address it.

> So how do we get from "fully functional digital version of reality" to DNA? Sounds like science fiction to me. If they're mapped out in zeros and ones, it's not DNA.

Do you know DNA itself is a map of space, time, and fundamental particles? All of these have dimensions that can be described by complex strings of 0s and 1s.

Also, by virtue of this coming from science and not yet being real, it IS science fiction. I am asking a question about a hypothetical. Can you answer the question? I feel like I've reiterated it about 10 times and if you aren't going to answer, I'll move on.

> Why would an AI person have wheels?

It can have whatever its designer gives it (like R2D2).

> You're having trouble picturing what a parallel AI reality with AI humans would be.

No I'm not. Have you seen Sophia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... e=emb_logo)?

> but digital version of reality that lives in an advanced computer with huge amounts of memory and storage. In this reality, people would have DNA and functional biology,

So how do we get from "fully functional digital version of reality" to DNA? Sounds like science fiction to me. If they're mapped out in zeros and ones, it's not DNA.

> In this reality, people would have DNA and functional biology, but these things would be mapped by ones and zeroes instead of actual space and time. The fake reality in the matrix Neo lives in until he's pulled out of it would be comparable, but every person would be a completely free agent as much as you and I.

While intriguing, there may be no connection ever to reality with this sci-fi vision of yours. We'll have to see.

Why would an AI person have wheels? You're having trouble picturing what a parallel AI reality with AI humans would be. Imagine the Earth. Now we replace physical characteristics like charges and vectors with the corresponding ones and zeroes, creating a fully functional but digital version of reality that lives in an advanced computer with huge amounts of memory and storage.

In this reality, people would have DNA and functional biology, but these things would be mapped by ones and zeroes instead of actual space and time. The fake reality in the matrix Neo lives in until he's pulled out of it would be comparable, but every person would be a completely free agent as much as you and I.
​
RE: coma -> yes, the value of human life has degrees. A human actively going about its life is worth more than one that cannot. Or one that is dead.

> Not sure why you're still putting limitations on the AI person.

I put limitations on the AI person because it's not a person. It's a machine, not a whole lot different from a smart car or Alexa. It's a machine with limbs instead of a machine with wheels.

> Why do you think they wouldn't have sexuality? What differentiates you from the AI person?

Chromosomes. DNA. Biology.

> What are the components?

Off the cuff I would say a human being is a living biological organism consisting of 46 pair of chromosomes and fulfilling our self-agreed-upon taxonomic category of homo sapiens. In general, though not exclusively, human beings are conscious, bi-pedal, sentient, able to reproduce, gendered, free-will agents comprised of what science has considered to be human organs and human functionality.

> That person is no longer a fully appreciable human, meaning they have less value than a normally functioning human being. They are still human, but with less value.

So if your mama or spouse were the one in a come, your mama or spouse would be of less value than a fully-appreciable human, in your view?

> I would say no. Being human is more than functionality. It is also biology, genetics, consciousness, sexuality, and being a living organism.

Not sure why you're still putting limitations on the AI person. In the AI world, the AI human would have all of those things, being fully alive as much as you until suffering a death in that AI, the same way you would in this reality. Why do you think they wouldn't have sexuality? What differentiates you from the AI person?

> I would say that being a human is more than just self-awareness and the ability to reason, as I mentioned above. There are many components necessary to qualify us as human.

What are the components?

> Oh, OK, so you'd admit that "limited capacity" still fits in the category of "fully appreciable"? So if a relative of yours is in a coma, and therefore unable to reason and not self-aware, are they no longer human?

That person is no longer a fully appreciable human, meaning they have less value than a normally functioning human being. They are still human, but with less value. If brain imaging indicates that person is incapable of self-awareness and reason, the person would have even less value.

>The implicit suggestion was that the capability for this scenario will exist. IF AI can operate as full-functioning human, THEN is it a human?

I would say no. Being human is more than functionality. It is also biology, genetics, consciousness, sexuality, and being a living organism.

> At present state, I have the ability to demonstrate self awarenesses and reason, qualifying me as a human.

I would say that being a human is more than just self-awareness and the ability to reason, as I mentioned above. There are many components necessary to qualify us as human.

> so they qualify as fully appreciable humans.

Oh, OK, so you'd admit that "limited capacity" still fits in the category of "fully appreciable"? So if a relative of yours is in a coma, and therefore unable to reason and not self-aware, are they no longer human?

> The former is a long stretch, and the latter is untrue. AI thinking is not even close to paralleling ours (except in very restricted applications like a chess game), though tremendous strides are being made in the AI field.
> But to claim they have feelings and that their feelings parallel human feelings is too much to swallow.

The implicit suggestion was that the capability for this scenario will exist. IF AI can operate as full-functioning human, THEN is it a human?

> Agreed, and you can only survive given the right environment and resources. That doesn't disqualify you or the zygote from being defined as "human life."

At present state, I have the ability to demonstrate self awarenesses and reason, qualifying me as a human. A zygote or any other bulk of human cells do not.

> Should I assume, then, you would advocate euthanasia for autistic, Down' Syndrome, or other mentally-handicapping conditions? Do you agree with social engineering and social Darwinism (a master race)? And since mental capacity is a continuum, where do you draw your lines (such as, below a certain IQ)? I'm curious to dialogue with you.

I don't advocate for the euthanasia of anything, but if a biological human does not demonstrate self awareness and reason, there should not be a societal imperative to keep those entities alive. Autistic, down's, and mentally-handicapped (to a degree, obviously, since the term "mentally-handicapped" could encompass complete brain death), exhibit self awareness and reason in limited or irregular capacities, so they qualify as fully appreciable humans.